Supreme Court of Mauritius, 4 mai 2026, 2026 ROD 15 – Judgment – Police v Jean Jursley

1

Judgment – Police v Jean Jursley

2026 ROD 15

IN THE COURT OF RODRIGUES CN: 146/2022

Police v/s Jean Jursley

Judgment

In an information lodged against the accused, the latter stands charged with the offence of “domestic violence” in breach of sections 2 and 13 (2) (a) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act. As per the particulars of the information, it is averred that the accused committed an act of domestic violence against his wife, one Mrs Lalande Jursley namely, strangled her with one hand and dealt her one fisty cuff at the forehead. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charge and he was represented by learned counsel Mr Moonesamy at trial stage and the prosecution was represented by learned counsel from the DPP’s office.

At the outset of the proceedings, the prosecution produced the official status of the accused, the latter being a police sergeant. The extract of the marriage certificate regarding the accused and the complainant was also produced to the Court.

PS Ravina was called under oath and he produced the defence statement of the accused. In the said statement, the accused denied the aforementioned charge.

Dr Moutien, a medical health officer deposed under oath and he explained that on the 24 th of April 2021, he examined the complainant at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. As per the PF 58, the injuries that the complainant sustained are as follows, “swelling over right frontal lobe and mild tenderness” and “strangulation marks over the right side of neck”. Under cross examination, the doctor confirmed that he examined the

complainant at about 00 25 hours and that no traces of blood were observed on the complainant. He further contended that as per his examination, the complainant did not bear any injury on her ears.

The complainant testified under oath and stated that she made a declaration at the police station of Grande Montagne on the 24 th of April 2021 at about 1.48 am. She explained that whilst she was sleeping at home at Montagne Goyaves with her two children, the accused started to knock at her door over several times. She went to open the door and after she put on her lights, the accused came into her room. Thereafter, he put his arms over the complainant’s neck and started to strangle her. The testimony of the complainant further revealed that the accused pushed her on the bed and continued to strangle her. Subsequently, she fell down and after she got up, the accused slapped her on the left side of her head. She fell down anew and her head hit the side of the bed. She explained that she got up again with difficulty and tried to grab her phone, however, the accused hit her again on her head. She stated that she finally managed to open the door and went to her neighbour’s place to eventually contact the police. She pointed out that the alleged incident took place between midnight and 01 00 am. She was taken to Queen Elizabeth Hospital and thereafter attended the police station of Grande Montagne.

Under cross examination, she agreed that she did not mention in her statement that her two children were present at the time of the alleged offence. She further admitted that she did not state in her statement that the accused pushed her on the bed and or with what hand he allegedly strangled her. However, she maintained her version to the effect that the accused hit her over her head and subsequently her head hit the side of the bed. She further agreed that she did not state in her statement that she was looking for her phone after the alleged acts committed by the accused and that she went to the neighbour’s place. She denied that she opened the door in a brutal manner which caused her the injuries. She further contended that after the alleged incident, possibly in view of her emotions, she could not tell relate to the police certain specific details in her statement.

After the prosecution closed its case, the accused was called under oath to give evidence. He denied to have strangled and or assaulted the complainant. He explained that the injuries the complainant sustained occurred whilst she opened the door in a brutal manner and thereafter, she fell down. He however admitted that he had a verbal argument with the complainant before she opened the said door. Under cross examination, he stated that he cannot explain the strangulation marks observed on the complainant and contained in the PF 58.

Learned counsel Mr Moonesamy submitted that as per the version of the complainant, the alleged incident occurred at 00 30 hours whilst her statement was recorded at 01 25 hours. Learned counsel laid emphasis on the discrepancies between the complainant’s testimony in Court and the version she furnished in her statement. It was the submission of learned counsel that the complainant tried to better her version in Court by adding the following details which were not contained in her statement namely, that she was thrown on the bed by the accused and the latter continued to strangle her, she fell down on the bed near her son, she was slapped and fell down with her head hitting the side of the bed, she was continuously hit and tried to look for her phone and eventually went to the neighbour’s place. As such, learned counsel submitted that the said inconsistencies are major in nature and therefore her version cannot be relied upon. It was further argued that the PF 58 cannot be taken as conclusive evidence in the present matter.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the prosecution, Mr Jeerasoo submitted that the complainant maintained her version in Court to the effect that she was strangled and she gave more details towards the act allegedly committed by the accused. In her statement, she stated that she was hit over her forehead and she maintained her version in the course of the proceedings. It was submitted that there are no major discrepancies between the version of the complainant given to the police and her sworn testimony in Court. Learned counsel stated that the PF 58 is of corroborative evidence and as such same supports the version of the complainant.

In the present matter, I have considered the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including the documentary evidence produced to the Court and the sworn version of the accused.

Concerning the declaration made by the complainant, it was held in the case of Marday v The State [2000 SCJ 225] that, ‘‘In a criminal case it is normal to assume that the version that is put to an accused party when recording his or her defence is the very complaint that was made by the victim’’. In the defence statement the version of the complainant put to the accused was to the effect that on the 24 th of April by 00 30 hours, after she opened the door, the accused strangled her with one hand on her neck and when she fell down, he hit her on her forehead. As such, the Court takes it that the alleged acts of strangulation and subsequent assault form the basis of the very complaint made by the complainant in her declaration to the police.

As regards to the injuries the complainant sustained, it was stated in the case of Jungal v The State [2006 SCJ 71] that a PF 58 is an important piece of documentary evidence to assess the complainant’s version. In the said PF 58 and as equally explained by Dr Moutien under oath, the complainant sustained the following injuries namely, “swelling over right frontal lobe and mild tenderness” and “strangulation marks over the right side & middle part of neck”.

Now, the testimony of the complainant in Court has revealed the very complaint she made to the police, inasmuch as she explained in convincing manner how after she opened her door, the accused strangled her by putting both of his arms on her neck and after she fell down, the accused further slapped her on the left side of her head. Furthermore, she maintained her version under cross examination more precisely that the accused hit her over her head. The injuries the complainant sustained have been observed by Dr Moutien and described in the PF 58.

The complainant admitted in the course of the proceedings that certain details she related in Court were not contained in her statement namely that, she was thrown on the bed, she fell down near her son, her head hit the bed and eventually she went to the neighbour’s place. However, these elements do not in any way affect the root of the complaint made by the complainant in the declaration, which she clearly explained in Court namely the specific acts of strangulation and assault committed by the accused upon her. As such, there is no departure from the original complaint she made to the police and her credible testimony in Court. In that respect, the Court has considered the guidelines explained in the case of Neeroo v The State [2023 SCJ 116].

The Court notes that there are inconsistencies in the complainant’s version furnished to the police and her sworn testimony regarding with what hand the accused strangled her and the exact spot of injury on her head. The Court finds that the alleged offence took place in the year 2021 and the complainant was deposing in Court after three years.

In the case of Rajbally v The State [2016 SCJ 340] it was held that, “It is not uncommon, before our Courts, for witnesses to give a version in court which, upon close scrutiny, is either inconsistent with or contains certain contradictions in comparison to statements made on previous occasions by him or her. This is not an

automatic ground to reject the testimony of the witness in toto. Rather, the situation calls for a close analysis by the Magistrate who is hearing the case.”

The same approach was adopted in the cases of Ramcharran v The Queen [1977 MR 226] and Sobha v The State [2011 SCJ 396].

Furthermore, in the case of Andrew Cooper v The King [2023 VSCA 67], the Court of Appeal in Australia held at paragraphs 72 and 96 that,

“First, not every discrepancy, inadequacy or inconsistency will necessitate a conclusion that a guilty verdict must be set aside. The issue will always be whether, on the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty.” (Underlining is mine).

Therefore, in light of the above given guidelines, the inconsistencies highlighted in the present matter are of a minor nature thereby not affecting the credibility of the complainant and the reliability of her testimony. The Court views the complainant’s testimony as a truthful account of the incident that verily took place on the 24 th of April 2021.

The accused denied the present charge in his out of court statement and he was not agreeable that he committed the said acts of strangulation and assault upon the complainant in the course of his sworn testimony. He claimed that since the complainant opened the door in a brutal way, this manoeuvre might have caused the said injuries. However, he could not explain to the Court the strangulation marks observed on the neck of the complainant. He nevertheless admitted that he had a verbal argument with the complainant on that night.

The Court finds that the explanation given by the accused in relation to the complainant’s injuries caused by the door, to be far from convincing. Firstly, the complainant in a very firm manner denied that the door caused her the injuries mentioned in the PF 58. Secondly, however brutal the complainant could have opened the door, this would not have caused injuries to such an extent to trigger swelling and mild tenderness. Thirdly, common sense dictates that undoubtedly the door could not have caused strangulation marks on the neck of the complainant.

I find it safe to rely upon the credible testimony of the complainant coupled with the PF 58 on record to convict the accused rather than to take into account the unconvincing version put forward by the latter.

For the above given reasons and based on the evidence borne on record, I hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such I find the accused guilty as charged.

Devinash Oozageer District Magistrate 5 th May 2026