Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 janvier 2020, 2020 LPW 3 – Police v Girish Dowlul

Police v Girish Dowlul

2020 LPW 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF LOWER PLAINES WILHEMS

Cause Number 6048/2019

In the matter of:

Police

v/s

Girish Dowlul

JUDGMENT

The Accused stands charged with the offence of BREACH OF PROTECTION ORDER in breach of sections 3A (1) & 13 (1) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act as amended by Act 10/16. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and stood inops consilii at trial stage. The Court proceedings were conducted in Creole language for the benefit of the Accused party.

THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION

At the very outset of the case for the Prosecution, the Police Prosecutor identified and produced a certified copy of Court Record bearing reference number DVA Cause No.370/17 which was marked as Doc A on record. The defence statement of Accused party duly recorded by Witness No.1, PS 4386 Hosseny on the 5 th July 2019 at 11 17 hours at Stanley police station under the usual warning was produced and was marked as Doc B on record.

Prosecution Witness No.2, Mrs Sooneetee Dowlul explained that she gave a defence statement in this case and did not wish to proceed with the present case as she was now on good terms with the Accused, her son. She explained that she was

stating so under oath voluntarily and the case was closed for the prosecution after motion for postponement was not granted in light of the repeated withdrawal statement given by the main prosecution witness.

THE CASE FOR THE DEFENCE

After he was explained his Constitutional rights, the Accused elected to remain mute and not to adduce any evidence. The case was then closed for the Prosecution.

I have assessed the evidence on record. I note that the Accused clearly denied the charge levelled against him in his defence statement on record (Doc B). The present case for the prosecution rested solely on the deposition of the main prosecution witness, Witness No.2 who failed to depose against the Accused party.

For all the above mentioned reasons, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Accused. I therefore grant the Accused the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the present case against him.

B. PRAYAG-RAJCOOMAR (Mrs) District Magistrate This 15 th January 2020