Supreme Court of Mauritius, 31 mars 2026, 2026 INT 77 – Pce v L. R. Seinde

Page 1 of 16

Pce v L. R. Seinde

2026 INT 77

CN 315/20

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Criminal Division)

In the matter of: –

Police

v/s

Louis Richard SEINDE

Judgment

Following a complaint made by one of his daughters Miss M. S. L. S (“W6”), the accused is being prosecuted under counts 1 and 2 for an offence of attempt upon chastity committed during the year 2015 in breach of section 249(5)(b)(c)(i) of the Criminal Code (the “Code”). He stands further charged under counts 3 and 4 for an offence of causing a child to be sexually abused committed in June and September 2016 respectively in breach of sections

Page 2 of 16

14(1)(a) and 18(5)(b) of the Child Protection Act (the ‘Act’). He pleaded not guilty to all the charges. The proceedings were conducted in Creole and both parties were represented by Counsel.

The law

Under counts 1 and 2, the provisions of section 249(5)(b) of the Code provide that “Any person who commits an indecent act (attentat à la pudeur), even without violence and with consent, upon a specified person shall commit an offence …”

The term “specified person” is defined under subsection (c)(i) as meaning “any person who, in relation to the person charged, comes within the prohibited degrees set out in articles 151, 152 and 153 of the Code Civil Mauricien.” For the said offence, the burden rests on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that (a) the accused committed an indecent act; and (b) on a specified person.

Under counts 3 and 4, section 14(1) of the Act provides that any person who causes, incites or allows any child to be sexually abused by him or by another person shall commit an offence. As per section 2 of the Act, the term ‘child’ is defined as “any unmarried person under the age of 18.”

Analysis

At the close of the prosecution’s case, no evidence was adduced by the defence. The accused’s version is thus contained in his out-of-Court statement wherein he denied the charges and averred that these allegations were concocted by his wife and daughters in order to get him out of the house.

In Court, the accused made a statement from the dock denying the charges levelled against him. He reiterated that W6 was in love with a boy and that he disapproved the relationship

Page 3 of 16

as the boy was coming at his place and doing improper acts with W6. The situation was known to his wife only and when he came to know and disprove of same, they came up with the allegations against him. As a father, he raised his children and cannot understand how W6 could come up with such allegations against him.

During the course of the trial, a number of aspects were highlighted by the defence in the prosecution’s case and I shall now in turn consider the live issues raised by the defence and assess the evidence adduced before me.

A – Fairness of the enquiry

The defence made it a live issue that the enquiry conducted in the present matter was not done in a fair manner at two levels; (i) the accused was not confronted with the exact charges for which he is presently being prosecuted; and (ii) the enquiry was not completed.

It can be gathered that the accused gave one written statement to PS Goohur (“W2”) on 12 May 2018 (Doc E). W2 confirmed that at the time of the recording of Doc E, the accused was confronted with the detailed allegations made against him by W6 but no charge as such was put to him. It is also on record, that WPS Ranjee (“W3”), as main enquiry officer, did further interview the accused on 20 February 2019 and invited him to give another written statement. He was duly cautioned and informed by W3 of his constitutional rights, he was confronted with the charges of attempt upon chastity and sexual intercourse with a specified person. However, the accused refused to give a written statement. He denied the charges and stated that he had already given his version to the police in a previous written statement.

Based on the content of Doc E coupled with the testimony of W3 given in Court, I find no reason to infer any unfairness as regards the conduct of the enquiry so far as the accused’s constitutional rights to be informed of the case against him are concerned.

Page 4 of 16

On the issue of completeness of the enquiry, I note that the accused mentioned in his defence statement that the allegations were being falsely levelled against him as she was influenced by her mother and he disapproved of W6’s love relationship.

I note that W2 explained that no further enquiry could be conducted on that aspect as the accused did not give the name of the said boyfriend. W2 could not explain the situation as regards the interview of the accused’s wife as he was thereafter transferred to another division. W3 was also questioned about the conduct of the enquiry, more particularly pertaining to the version given by the accused. She confirmed that at the time of the offence, the accused and his wife were still living under the same roof. However, at the time the offence was reported, they were already separated. The accused’s wife was also not referred to as a witness by W6 and therefore was not interviewed. W3 explained that as W6 did not mentioned that she was dating a boy at the material time of the offences, she was not questioned on that aspect. Nonetheless, W3 agreed that such verifications were important and she acknowledged that consequently, the enquiry was not completed.

The records show that during her testimony in Court, W6 did not deny having a boyfriend at that time. She agreed that her father was not aware of her relationship and only came to know about it later. Her sister, Virginia confirmed that there was a difficult family situation caused by the accused’s alcoholic addiction. She also confirmed that she reported a case of assault given his violent disposition against her. Therefore, for all intent and purposes the existence of the boyfriend and the bad blood existing among the members of the family was not disputed.

It was the accused’s version that there was a motive behind the allegations and that the rest of the family was allied against him. The purpose was to make sure that this aspect be taken into consideration whilst assessing the credibility of the complaints made against him. It is a fact that the enquiry did not canvass the motive invoked by the accused. However, such motive was duly canvassed during the course of the proceedings. I note that although the motive was denied, the existence of the boyfriend and the existence of the bad relationship were not in

Page 5 of 16

dispute. Therefore, I consider that no prejudice was caused to the defence’s case and that the proceedings have not been unfairly tainted.

B – The status of W6

It can be gathered from the Birth Certificate produced for W6 (Doc A) dated 11 May 2018 that her date of birth is 01 March 2000. Therefore, is it clear that in the year 2015, W6 was 15 and in the year 2016, she was 16.

Moreover, it can be read from Doc A, under the heading ‘FATHER – PERE’, that the name of the accused appears as the father of W6. It is therefore unrebutted that there is an ‘ascendant et descendant’ relationship between the accused and W6 as catered for under article 151 of the Code Civil Mauricien. Thus, it is established that W6 falls within the definition of ‘specified person’ as provided for under the Code.

I also note that on Doc A, there is no entry made under the heading ‘ANNOTATION(S) – MENTION(S)’. It is thus confirmed that as at the date of issuance of the Doc A i.e., 11 May 2018, no mention is made of any marriage. It can safely be inferred therefore that W6 was also not married in 2016 and at the time of the alleged offences, she was unmarried and a minor. Hence, W6 is falls within the definition of ‘child’ as provided under the Act.

C – The plan

On 12 May 2018, based on the complaint made by W6, a reconstruction exercise was carried out on the locus of the incident. A plan (Doc D) prepared by PS Digpaul (“W5”) and photographs (Doc F, F1 to F4) taken by PS François (“W4”) under the instructions of W3, were produced as well as an explanatory statement put up by W3 dated 18 February 2019 (Doc G). During the course of the proceedings, the accuracy of the plan prepared by W5 and the indications given by W6 were challenged.

Page 6 of 16

I do take note that the complaint made by W6 referred to four different incidents, two in 2015 and two in 2016. W5 confirmed that as per the indications given by W6, the offence of attempt upon chastity happened twice on the bed labelled A on Doc D. Nevertheless, he maintained that W6 stated having been dragged by the accused from the kitchen indicated as Point B to another room indicated as Point C. Of note, the bed labelled A is found in another bedroom than Point C.

It is worth highlighting that at the time the reconstruction exercise was carried out, the complaints were still being investigated and the charges as reflected on the present Information had not yet been preferred. Thus explaining that the terms used to describe the offences on Doc D are not the same as the charges preferred under the present Information.

I note from the explanations given by W3 in Doc G that Doc F1 shows the victim’s bedroom and the victim pointing to a bed where her father committed the offences on her person in 2015, in June 2016 and in September 2016. Of note, under the present Information, the complaints for June and September 2016, are for offences under the Child Protection Act under counts 3 and 4 as opposed to the offences of attempt upon chastity under counts 1 and 2.

W3 was lengthily cross-examined but was not confronted with the above. As such, I consider that the explanations she gave in Doc G regarding the reconstruction exercise stand unrebutted. Based on the above and being satisfied with the clarifications obtained from Doc G, I do not retain the defence’s contention that the plan is not accurate.

D – Attempt upon chastity under counts 1 and 2

What constitute an indecent act i.e. ‘attentat à la pudeur’ ? Since the provisions of Section 249 of the Code mirror those of Article 331 of the former French Penal Code, it is pertinent to turn to the French doctrine whilst assessing the elements of the offence.

The term ‘attentat à la pudeur’ was explained in Dalloz C. P. A, Art. 331 as being “… tout acte exercé directement sur une personne déterminée, dans le but de blesser sa

Page 7 of 16

pudeur, et qui est de nature à produire ce résultat.” An indecent act was further defined in Encyclopédie Dalloz, Code Pénal, Recueil Vo Attentat aux Mœurs at note 51, as being “tout acte contraire aux bonnes mœurs puisse réaliser l’acte matériel d’un attentat à la pudeur, qu’il s’agisse d’un attouchement, d’un geste provoquant, dès l’instant que cet acte est impudique et qu’il a été commis sur un individu de l’un ou de l’autre sexe.”

Ex-facie the Information, the charges retained against the accused under counts 1 and 2 were particularised; under count 1 as ‘he caressed the breast of his daughter’ and under count 2 as ‘he forced his daughter to suck his penis’. Applying the French doctrine mentioned above, I consider that both acts as particularised fall within the definition of an indecent act.

D – Credibility of W6

The case for the prosecution under counts 1, 2 and 3 relied mainly on the testimony of W6. I do bear in mind that as a general rule the “Court is entitled to act on the sole and uncorroborated evidence of a witness who is a victim in a sexual offence case where the Court finds the witness truthful and has addressed its mind to the danger of acting on uncorroborated evidence.” vide Saman v State (2004 SCJ 3) and I shall now assess the evidence she gave in Court as well as that of her sister Virginia under count 4.

(i) Testimony in Court

W6 explained that in 2015-2016, she used to reside with her parents and her two sisters Laurie and Virginia at Le Morne. She confirmed that in May 2018, she made a complaint at La Gaulette Police Station against her father for attempt upon chastity and sexual abuse. She referred to distinct occasions on which the said incidents happened. Although she could not initially recall her age at the time of the incidents, she then stated that she was approximately 15- 16 years old. She positively identified the accused in Court as her father and as being the one who perpetrated those acts on her.

Page 8 of 16

She explained that the first incident happened in her room. A morning, whilst she was still in bed with her little sister Laurie, her father got under the bed sheets and touched her breast. She was shocked by his act and did not know how to react. She explained that on another occasion whilst she was alone at home with her father cleaning the dishes, the accused dragged her from the kitchen into his bedroom. She could not say the exact year but recalled her age being between 15-16 years old. On that day, the accused inserted his penis into her mouth. Then, he pushed her onto the bed, lied down on her, pulled down his trousers, inserted his penis into her vagina and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.

Thereafter, W6 described a third incident which happened in her bedroom in 2016. It was in the afternoon, whilst she was changing her clothes in her bedroom, her father entered the room. He pushed her onto the bed; he pulled her clothes up and was about to insert his penis into her vagina. His penis touched her vagina but before he could insert it completely, her sister Virginia opened the door of the room, she was shocked and left. This caused the accused to stop and to leave the room. She started crying and her sister came to comfort her. They went to have a conversation at the seaside. It is then that she told her sister Virginia that their father tried to force her to have sex with her. When they came back home, they continued their conversation on the roof of the house, and she related all the other incidents to her sister Virginia.

W6 further referred to another incident which happened one night in 2016. She related that whilst she was sleeping with her younger sister in her room and whilst everyone was asleep in the house, her father entered the room. However, she could not recall what happened on that night. She then stated that there were other instances when her father entered her room, woke her up but she managed to push him away. She agreed that she did not tell the police that there were other incidents. However, she explained that she only related to police material incidents that led to sexual abuse.

As she could not recall the details of that particular incident, W6’s memory was refreshed on the basis of her statement given to La Gaulette Police Station on 10 May 2018. She was read extracts of her statement wherein she described that on the night her father entered her room, woke her up, he removed her underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina. After same

Page 9 of 16

was read over to her, W6 could not recall the incident but confirmed that if she related that to the police in her statement, same was true. She was confronted with the accused’s denial of the charges and the fact that she levelled false allegations against him and maintained her version. She denied having concocted the allegations with her mother in order to get her father out of the house.

W6 was questioned lengthily under cross-examination. During such exercise, the defence drew the attention of the Court to certain inconsistencies in her testimony. I do bear in mind that giving evidence in Court is not a memory test vide Vythilingum v State (2017 SCJ 379) and that “Inconsistencies are often understandable and are likely to occur when, for example, the testimony is given in Court long after the event… Inconsistencies must therefore be measured by the yardstick of seriousness and materiality which must be linked with the overall issue of truthfulness.” vide Saman (2004 SCJ 3). I note that in the case of Hauradhun v State (2010 SCJ 183) the Supreme Court pointed that –

“It is well established that the Court will not outright reject the evidence of a deponent merely because it contains inconsistencies. It has a duty to analyse the whole testimony of the deponent taking into consideration, inter alia, the lapse of time between the alleged offense and the time he gives evidence, his age, his apparent mental state and his demeanour in Court. The learned magistrate has then to decide whether the inconsistencies were so material that the whole of the deponent’s evidence should be rejected; or whether they were of such a nature that they did not affect his credibility. No doubt each case has to be decided on its own merit.”

Moreover, in the case of Mungra v State (2020 SCJ 125), it was held that discrepancies noted in a witness’s testimony can be “clear signal of the possibility of fabrication” more particularly when new details surrounding the commission of the offence are referred to for the first time in Court years after the event.

Page 10 of 16

Without losing sight that in the matter at hand the date of the alleged offences dates back to 2015 and 2016 whereas the witnesses gave evidence in Court in 2025, I shall analyse the relevance of each inconsistency noted in W6’s testimony under each respective count.

Under count 1, W6 was questioned as to whether the accused talked to her before coming to join her in bed and the reason why her little sister did not wake up or hear anything. She could not recall whether or not the accused talked to her on that day. She was also questioned on the position she was in bed as well as the position of the accused when he joined her in bed. She gave honest answers and explained clearly how her father came to lie next to her whilst she was lying with her head at the foot of the bed. She cried after the incident and no one noticed her demeanour or her face expression as her little sister was sleeping and there was no one else in the house.

After a careful analysis of her testimony under count 1, I consider that W6 gave a truthful account in Court which withstood the test of cross-examination. True is it that she might not have related in Court whether her father did talk to her or not, but I do not consider that variance in her account to be material enough to discard her version and consider that allowance should be made for the passage of time between the date of the offence and the date on which she gave evidence. The moreso that W6 did not come up with a new version in Court. I therefore chose to accept her version under count 1.

Under count 2, W6 was questioned about a series of facts that preceded the incident as she initially reported to the police. Firstly, whether she was alone at home. W6 agreed that during her examination, she mentioned being alone at home when the incident happened. However, she acknowledged that in her initial statement, she only mentioned one sister and her mother being away from home. No mention was made as to whether her younger sister was also away from home. She explained that the police did not question her on that aspect, she was only questioned as to the whereabouts of her sister Virginia whose name she had already mentioned to the police.

Page 11 of 16

W6 was further questioned as to how the accused dragged her into the room. But, she could not recall which hand was used by the accused to grab her arm, nor could she say which one of her arms he pulled on to drag her.

Upon being questioned on the sexual act itself, W6 agreed that in her statement, she mentioned that the accused put her hand in his trousers. However, she could not say whether her first reaction was to remove her hand from the accused’s trousers. She could not recall as well whether she stated to the police that she tried to run away but that the accused grabbed her and made her sit on his lap or whether she felt nauseous when the accused inserted his penis into her mouth and pushed him away. She explained that she was always in fear whenever she was confronted to such situation and did not know how to react.

It is pertinent, at this stage, to refer to the particulars of the charge levelled under count 2. The charge relates to an action of ‘suck his penis’. However, W6 referred to two acts, the one of forcefully inserting his penis inside her mouth followed by a forced sexual intercourse. Of note, in her initial complaint made to police under count 2, W6 stated that the accused first put her hand into his trousers. When she removed her hands, he forcefully inserted his penis into her mouth. In Court, upon being cross-examined, W6 was honest to say that she knows that the accused forced his penis in her mouth and that the accused also forced her to have sexual intercourse with him but could not say for sure whether both acts happened on the same day. She was nevertheless was adamant that both acts happened and happened in the same room.

Under count 3, W6 confirmed that her father entered her room during the night. Despite being referred lengthily to extracts of her initial statement given to the police on that incident, W6 could not recall any of the details. She confirmed that since her sister was asleep as well as the other members of the family, there is no witness of the incident. It was only upon being confronted with the version that there was blood on the bedsheet that she realised the event for which she was being questioned. She conceded that given the passage of time, she was confused about which incident happened in her bedroom and which one happened in her father’s bedroom. She realised that she might have mixed the two incidents. However, W6 maintained that the first

Page 12 of 16

time she had sexual intercourse it was with the accused and the incident happened in his bedroom.

Having duly considered the above paragraphs, as regards the charge under count 2 and 3, I am of the view that there is a discrepancy in the sequence of events, the description of the sexual act as initially complained of by W6 and her evidence given in Court. Although some allowance can be made for the passage of time and the possibility of confusion, I consider that the discrepancy noted bears on substantial aspects of the complaint under each count and that it would be unsafe to act on such version.

Under count 4, four major inconsistencies were canvassed by the defence by way of cross-examination: (i) whether W6’s dress was lifted to her breast whilst being pushed on the bed; (ii) whether the accused removed W6’s underwear completely; (iii) whether there was penetration or not; and (iv) the room in which the incident happened.

I have duly analysed W6’s evidence in Court and that of her sister in relation to count 4. I do note that there are variances in the version given to the police and the version given in court. However, I note that W6 gave plausible explanations pertaining to her confusion; she maintained that the incident happened at a time she was undressing herself and that the accused surprised her. She described the act as one where she would stop removing her dress and attempt to put it back on. At the same time, she was pushed on the bed by the accused. She confirmed that the accused removed his trousers, pulled up her dress, and pulled down her underwear. She could not recall if she stated in her statement that her father removed her underwear completely and threw it on the floor. The accused started to insert his penis inside her vagina when suddenly her sister Virginia opened the door.

The defence highlighted that W6 was inconsistent in her version on the issue of penetration or not. I have duly considered the evidence given by W6 under examination in chief and under cross-examination, I am satisfied that whatever the words she used, she described the same act, i.e., that the accused was about to penetrate her but before he could penetrate her

Page 13 of 16

completely, he was interrupted and in so doing the penis touched her vagina. I do not find any major inconsistency in the manner in which W6 described the act.

The sister Virginia confirmed W6’s version in Court on a number of pertinent and material issues. She explained that there was no one home at the material time, that the door to W6’s room was closed and that she surprised her father attempting to have sex with W6 in the latter’s room. She described the incident in two sequences as opposed to W6. She explained how at first when she saw her father in such a position, she assumed that her parents were having sex and closed the door. She then realised that in fact it was her sister’s hairstyle and opened the door again. However, she maintained that the first time she opened the door, no one saw her. Her sister was lying on the bed and her father was lying in between her legs. When she opened the door for the second time, her father stopped and put on his short. She then observed that W6’s underwear was pulled down and was not lying on the floor.

I am alive that the complainant’s version is supported by no less than her sister with whom the accused had an existing bad blood. I do bear in mind as well that there are some variances in their respective testimony in relation to the underwear, whether it was pulled down or lying on the floor. However, I note that the incident happened very rapidly and one can understand that there might be confusion on certain aspects. True is it that W6 did not mention that the door was opened twice but as explained by the sister, no one saw her the first time. Virginia agreed that in her statement to the police she mentioned that the incident happened in their parents’ room. However, she maintained that in fact it happened in her sister’s room and in re-examination she confirmed having given a second statement to rectify that.

Having had the benefit of hearing the sister Virginia deponing in Court, the witness strikes me as being a truthful one. The way in which she related the incident cannot leave room for concoction. She described initially thinking having surprised her parents having intercourse and such version is very plausible and credible. She had no reason to believe otherwise until she observed something that was unusual which caused her to open the door again.

Page 14 of 16

Bearing in mind the above, I am of the view that the discrepancies highlighted are not material as they are in no way changing the essence of the act complained of but in fact come from a confusion for which plausible explanations have been given. Moreover, I consider that W6 was a credible witness and chose to accept her testimony under count 4.

(ii) Timing and motive of complaint

W6 agreed that she only reported the matter to the police 2 years after the last incident i.e., in 2018 whereas the last incident happened in 2016. She also agreed that she did not relate any of the incidents to anyone until the last incident which triggered her to reveal all the incidents. She maintained that she did not agree with what her father did to her. On each occasion she was at a loss and did not know how to react and what to say. She was also afraid as she had been threatened by the accused. As soon as her sister Virginia was informed, they decided not to reveal anything in order to allow her to focus on her preparations for the examinations of the School Certificate; she would move to her eldest sister’s house in Chemin Grenier.

Virginia corroborated W6’s version and explained that at the material time, W6 was preparing herself to take examinations and it was a difficult family situation to manage. However, as from then on, W6 went to reside at another sister’s place in Chemin Grenier. Since W6 was a minor she fears that the CDU would remove her from the family. She could not conceive that because of her father’s acts, W6’s future would have been further jeopardised. Her father’s attitude at home was becoming more and more violent because of his alcoholic addiction. She acknowledged that the situation was so bad that she had to report a case of assault against her father in 2018. Finally as she could not hold it any more, she told her mother and thereafter, W6 reported the matter to the police.

I note that the accused invoked a false declaration made out of spite by W6 following a concocted version put forward by all the members of his family to get him out of the family house. I note that the witness Virginia did not dispute the fact that the family situation was at its worst at the time the complaint against the accused was made and that there was a history of domestic violence. I also note that W6 did not dispute having a boyfriend at the material time.

Page 15 of 16

However, she was adamant that her father only came to know about the said relationship at a later stage.

Of note, this Court is not confronted with a one-time incident but is confronted with four incidents reported. Out of which one incident was witnessed by another member of the family. At the time the matter was reported, W6 was already 18. As she was already of age, there was no need for her to be assisted at the time of the declaration. Although there is a possibility of concoction prior to the declaration being made, I am of the view that the risk that the version given to the police by W6, be influenced by another adult cannot simply be inferred from a bad family relationship. The moreso given the seriousness of the complaints made against the accused.

I take it that two years is indeed a long period and I am alive that the passage of time between the alleged date of an offence and the date on which it is first reported is a factor to be taken into consideration whilst assessing the genuineness of a complaint as it increases the risk of concoction. Nevertheless, I am of the view that each case has to be put in context. We are here dealing with a complainant and an accused party who had a special bond; a ‘father and daughter’ relationship. One cannot lose sight that a family unit is the most important aspect in one’s life, which caters for the most essential need of a person: that of ‘security’. It is a fact that whenever the family stability is shaken, it impacts negatively on its members.

I have duly assessed the evidence adduced before me. I am of the view that W6’s version that she moved to her sister’s place as she was sitting for the School Certificate examinations at the material time stands unrebutted. Her evidence was supported by the version of her sister Virginia. Taking into consideration the family context in which the complainant was evolving and the fact that she was not mature enough to take decisions on her own as she was then aged 16; I am satisfied that there are valid reasons supporting the delay taken to report the said matter.

Furthermore, I consider that W6 testified in a straightforward manner. For three of the incidents reported, she presented a detailed sequence of events without her memory having to be prompted. Whilst considering her evidence as a whole, I consider that her testimony was

Page 16 of 16

coherent and credible save for the facts under counts 2 and 3 where she admitted being confused. Whenever she could not recall, she was very honest in her answers. Even upon being confronted with her initial declaration, she would prefer to maintain that she could not recall rather than confirm a fact she was not sure of. On the contrary she would be adamant about facts she was certain happened and how it happened. I am of the view that any discrepancy noted only amounted to confusion which the passage of time would explain. I therefore do not consider the motive invoked by the accused to be justified.

Conclusion

For the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, I consider that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused under counts 1 and 4. I therefore find the accused guilty under counts 1 and 4.

As regards counts 2 and 3, given the reasoning highlighted above that it would be unsafe to act on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I chose to grant the benefit of the doubt to the accused under counts 2 and 3 respectively. I accordingly dismiss the charge under counts 2 and 3 against the accused.

Delivered this 31 March 2026

M. Lambert-Henry (Mrs) Magistrate Intermediate Court