Supreme Court of Mauritius, 30 avril 2026, 2026 BMB 31 – Police v Jean Sylvestre LABONNE

Police v Jean Sylvestre LABONNE

2026 BMB 31

BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT OF BLACK RIVER In the matter of: Cause number 5863/23 Police V Jean Sylvestre LABONNE JUDGMENT 1. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge of assault laid down against him. He was unrepresented throughout the trial. 2. The prosecution produced the PF58 of the declarant issued and signed by witness no.3. The said document was produced without objection and was marked Doc A. 3. Witness no.1 deposed to the effect that on the 11 th December 2021, at 10h30, he met with the accused at Temple Road, Tamarin and he duly cautioned the latter, explained to him his constitutional rights and invited him to give a defence statement. The accused refused to give a statement in writing and made the following reply: “mo d’accord avec ca charge la, mo ti gagne probleme avec li.” 4. Witness no.1 identified accuse as being the person whom he interviewed. 5. Witness no.2 testified upon oath and mentioned that on the 28 th July 2019, at 17h, she was home at Tamarin. She mentioned that one Vess Labonne whom she identified as the accused in the dock was outside near a shop (‘tabagie’) and the said accused was playing music loud from a loudspeaker. 6. She mentioned that her house is at a distance of approximately 25 metres from the shop and as she was tired from the loud music which was playing since 9am – 5pm, she decided to ask the accused to decrease the volume of the music. Following that, the accused came in front of her front door, leaned over and insulted her in front of other people. The accused then grabbed witness no.2, dragged her outside on the road, put her down on the floor and beat her up all over her body by slaps and blows.

She mentioned that she was injured at her left arm and her face and attended treatment at hospital although she was not admitted. 7. Her version went unrebutted as the accused had no cross-examination for her. 8. At the close of the prosecution’s case, the accused made a statement from the dock whereby he denied the charge. He mentioned that at that time he did not yet have a loudspeaker and that on that day, the declarant got into an altercation with another person who was playing music loud from that person’s car. Accused mentioned that the declarant came outside, spoke to him, went inside and came back outside with a big spoon hidden behind her back which she used to beat the accused at the head. The accused then pushed the declarant who fell. 9. I have considered the testimony of the witnesses who deposed as well as their demeanour in court. 10. First of all, failure to cross-examine witnesses entails that the deposition of these witnesses is accepted as the truth. Secondly, as opposed to the declarant who deposed under oath to expose herself to cross-examination, the accused’s contention in defence came from an unsworn testimony. The court cannot set a sworn testimony on the same cogency level as an unsworn testimony. Thirdly, the enquiry officer who deposed under oath mentioned that upon being cautioned and questioned, the accused admitted the charge against him and admitted that he had a dispute with the declarant on that day. 11. The court has also to add that, when the testimony of the declarant is carefully analysed, her version is consistent with the findings in the PF58 which mentioned ‘ecchymosis lower lip’ and ‘abrasion left upper limb’. The court has no qualm in believing the prosecution witness who deposed in a straightforward manner. 12. I find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and I find the accused guilty as charged.

M I F NATHIRE Ag Senior District Magistrate This 30 th April 2026