Supreme Court of Mauritius, 6 avril 2026, 2026 ROD 18 – Police v Ricaud Ravina

1

Police v Ricaud Ravina

2026 ROD 18

IN THE COURT OF RODRIGUES CN: 1478/2025

Police v/s Ricaud Ravina

Judgment

In an information lodged against the accused, the latter stands charged with the offence of “assault” in breach of sections 228 and 230 (1) of the Criminal Code. As per the particulars of the information, it is averred that the accused inflicted wounds and blows upon one Mr John Ashley Rosemay.

At the outset of the proceedings, the prosecution produced a PF 58 of the complainant. In the said PF 58, it is stipulated that the complainant sustained lacerations on his left back.

PS Lamvohee stated that on the 25 th of January 2024, he interviewed the accused and the latter declined to give a statement. PC Perinne stated that on the 15 th of December 2023, he made a search at the premises of the accused, and no knife allegedly used for the assault was secured.

The complainant stated that on the 15 th of December 2023, he was at his father in law’s place, that is the accused. Whilst the accused was sleeping, the complainant stated that he knocked at a window and thereafter the accused woke up with a knife and assaulted him on his stomach and on his left back. He was taken to the hospital for treatment and was discharged after 2 days.

After the prosecution closed its case, the accused was explained of his constitutional rights and he elected to make a statement from the dock by denying the charge.

In the present matter, I have considered the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence borne on record.

As per the case of Jungal v The State [2006 SCJ 71] it was stated that; ‘‘Document A was the medical certificate (PF 58) of the complainant. It was accordingly an important piece of evidence against which the complainant’s version could be tested.’’

The complainant has in a very clear and convincing manner explained the sequence of events that took place on the 15 th of December 2023. He explained that after he knocked at the window of the accused, the latter assaulted him and that he was injured on his left back. As such the complainant’s testimony does tally with the injuries observed on the PF 58. It is borne on record that the complainant was not cross examined.

On the other hand, the accused elected to make a statement from the dock. The weight of an unsworn statement was explained in DPP v Nepaulsing [2012 SCJ 490] and reference was made to the case of R v Coughlan (1977) 64 Cr App Rep 11 CA whereby the Court of Appeal concluded that; ‘‘whatever status may be assigned to an unsworn statement, it can hardly vie with sworn evidence in cogency and weight’’.

Furthermore, in the judgment of R (Dutta) v General Medical Council [2020 EWHC 1974], the Court stated the following pertaining to evidence given under cross examination; ‘‘[44] … (11) ‘‘The general rule is that oral evidence given under cross-examination is the gold standard because it reflects the long-established common law consensus that the best way of assessing the reliability of evidence is by confronting the witness.’’

The following guidelines were expressed in the case of [Annia T v The State] (2006 SCJ 262) to the effect that;

‘‘Where the prosecution adduces evidence which is strong and credible enough to support the charge, it will be open to the trial court to act upon that evidence unless the accused party adduces such evidence as to satisfy the trial court that it should not act on the evidence adduced by the prosecution’’. The accused did not adduce such evidence to satisfy me that I should not act on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. For the above given reasons, the Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused is found guilty as charged.

Devinash Oozageer District Magistrate 26 th March 2026