Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 mai 2026, 2026 PMP 7 – Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun

Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun

2026 PMP 7

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 4868/25 In the matter of:- Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun JUGMENT

A. Introduction

1. The Accused stands charged with an offence of Driving without due care and attention in breach of Sections 123C (1)(a) and 52 Second Schedule of Road Traffic Act as amended.

2. The information avers that on or about the 19th day of February 2024 at New Trunk Road, Bois Rouge, the Accused did unlawfully drive a motor vehicle, to wit: Government vehicle registration number 285 RM 18 at the place as aforesaid, without due care and attention.

3. The Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and was represented by counsel throughout the trial.

4. The case for the prosecution was conducted by Prosecuting Counsel.

B. The case for the prosecution

5. A memo regarding the official status of the Accused dated 18.10.24 signed by witness no.6 was produced and marked as DOC A.

6. The NTA certificate of motor vehicle 285 RM 18 signed by witness no.8 was produced and marked as DOC B.

7. Witness no.1 testified that on 19.02.24, he was posted at Pamplemousses police station performing second shift duty when he received a phone call to attend to a road accident at Bois Rouge roundabout. He proceeded thereat and notice that a police vehicle, which registration he could not remember, driven by the Accused was met with an accident. The motor vehicle knocked against a tree when proceeding towards Belle Vue Harel. At this stage, the witness’ previous inconsistent statement was put to him to the effect that he had previously stated the following: “the police van was negotiating the roundabout Bois Rouge following a puddle of water on the road, the police van skidded and ended its course on the left side”. He confirmed that this was current version. He continued to explain that he saw that the motor vehicle h ad knocked against a tree, off the road, and its radiator was facing towards Bois Rouge. There was heavy rainfall on that day and the road was wet. He took down notes and measurements in light of which he drew a plan of the locus, which he produced and same was marked as DOC C. He also produced the defence statement of the Accused, marked as DOC D.

8. In cross-examination, witness no.1 stated that he is familiar with the area where the accident happened. During heavy rain fall, the roundabout is filled with water, and part of the roundabout is flooded and drains at a speed on the road. It is an area which is prone to get water accumulation during heavy rainfall. The road accident occurred at 10pm. The Accused was on duty carrying out alcohol test at SSRN hospital on a patient involved in a road accident. According to the Accused’s version, he was driving at 45 km/hr. He agreed that one cannot speed from the Engen gas station to the Beau Plan roundabout as they are only 200 metres apart. A reasonable driver would not be able to speed along that strip. He confirmed that the Accused is clean of any road traffic offence. He did not ascertain whether there was any oil spillage on the road. He stated that the road accident occurred because of the water accumulation. He also stated that it could have been oil on the road. He did not find any evidence that the Accused was driving without due care and attention.

9. Witness no.2 produced a road accident report of the damages he observed on motor vehicle 285 RM 18, marked as DOC E.

10. Witness no.3 confirmed that on 19.02.24, the Accused was on official duty performing second shift duty.

11. Witness no.4 produced a copy of the NIP served on the Accused, marked as DOC F.

12. A letter from the Director (Mechanical Engineering), Ministry of National Infrastructure and Community Development describing the damages to the motor vehicle 285 RM 18 was produced and marked as DOC G.

C. The case for the defence

13. The Accused elected to remain silent.

D. Analysis

14. In the present case, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused had departed from the standard of a reasonable, competent and prudent driver in all circumstances of the case.

15. I have carefully assessed the evidence on record.

16. I have taken cognisance of the Accused’s version. He stated having left the SSRN hospital at about 22:15hrs and going to Rivière du Rempart police station along NTR Bois Rouge at a speed of 45 km/hr in police van 285 RM 18. Reaching the roundabout, he slowed down to negotiate. His van skidded on a puddle of water and despite applying his brakes to try to regain control of the vehicle, the van unfortunately went knocking against a drain and ended its course in a ‘précipice’. I have also taken cognisance of the damages sustained to the police van which I find to be quite considerable and extensive. The version of the Accused that he was driving at a speed of 45km/hr and then slowing down whilst negotiating does not seem tenable in view of these damages.

17. Nevertheless, at no point during the trial did the prosecution adduce any evidence to rebut the version of the Accused. The prosecution seemed to have just accepted the version of the Accused with the enquiring officer stating that the accident occurred because of the flooding along the roundabout due to the heavy rainfall, or it could also have been due to oil spillage. No evidence was adduced to show how the Accused acted imprudently or carelessly or how his actions fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver in the circumstances of this case.

1 Chaddee v The State 2011 SCJ 149

E. Conclusion

18. For all reasons as stated, I find that the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly dismiss the charge against him.

Mrs. M. D. Chung Kow Cheong District Magistrate 15.05.26