Supreme Court of Mauritius, 27 janvier 2020, 2020 ROD 8 – POLICE V LOUIS STEPHANO MOMUS

POLICE V LOUIS STEPHANO MOMUS

2020 ROD 8

POLICE V LOUIS STEPHANO MOMUS

Cause No: 970/2019 THE COURT OF RODRIGUES

In the matter of:- POLICE

VERSUS

MOMUS STEPHANO LOUIS

———- JUDGMENT Introduction. 1. Accused stands charged with the offence of domestic violence in breach of section 2 and 13(2) (a) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act as amended by Act 10/2016. Accused pleaded not guilty and was not assisted by Counsel at trial. The trial. 2. For the prosecution, after the medical certificate issued to the declarant was produced by the prosecutor where it was found that the declarant sustained no external injury, the prosecutor called Police Constable Perrine (“W3”) who read and produced the statement recorded from Accused. The next witness called by the prosecution was the declarant. She testified that she has already adduced evidence in the present matter where she stated that she did not want to proceed. She went to say that she is maintaining her position and that she still does not want to testify against Accused.

3. For the defence, Accused made a statement from the dock and denied the offence levelled against him. The legal framework. 4. Section 13 (2) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act provides: Any person who does an act of domestic violence shall commit an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable — (a) on a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding 50,000 rupees; (b) on a second conviction, to a fine not exceeding 100,000 rupees and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years; (c) on a third or subsequent conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years. 6. As regards to domestic violence, same is defined in section 2 of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act and provides: “domestic violence” includes any of the following acts committed by a person against his spouse, a child of his spouse or another person living under the same roof (a) willfully inflicting, or attempting to inflict, a wound or blow, or threatening to inflict a wound or blow; (b) willfully or knowingly placing or attempting to place, or threatening to place, the spouse or the other person in fear of physical injury to himself or to one of his children; (c) intimidating, harassing, stalking, ill-treating, insulting, brutality or cruelty; (d) compelling the spouse or the other person by force or threat to engage in any conduct or act, sexual or otherwise, from which the spouse or the other person has the right to abstain; (e) confining or detaining the spouse or the other person, against his will;

(f) harming, or threatening to harm, a child of the spouse; (g) causing or attempting to cause, or threatening to cause, damage to the spouse’s or the other person’s property; (h) depriving, without any reasonable excuse, the spouse of resources which the spouse is entitled to, or of payment for rent in respect of shared residence;

Assessments.

7. I have assessed all the evidence on record.

8. In the present matter, for the prosecution, there is the statement recorded from Accused where he denied of having assaulted the declarant. Furthermore, there is no evidence adduced by the declarant in respect of the alleged assault which she was subjected to by Accused.

9. For the defence, there is a denial statement which he made from the dock.

10. Hence, in the light of the above, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this is being said because there is no evidence which has been put forward to prove the elements in respect of the present offence.

Conclusion.

11. For the reasons referred above, the case is dismissed against Accused.

D.J.A Dangeot Senior District Magistrate Delivered on 27 January 2020.