Supreme Court of Mauritius, 7 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 70 – Police v Hurynundon

Police v Hurynundon

2026 RDR 70

CN: 7117/2023

THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIERE DU REMPART

In the matter of:-

Police

v.

Hansley Hurynundon

JUDGMENT

Accused is prosecuted on an information for the offence of assault in breach of sections 228(1) and 230(1) of the Criminal Code for having wilfully and unlawfully committed an assault one Harsh Seeraz (“the Complainant”) on 07.08.2022 (“the material date”) at Goodlands.

Accused pleaded not guilty, and he was assisted by Counsel. Police Prosecutor conducted the case for Prosecution. Proceedings were held in Creole.

The case for Prosecution rests on the testimony of the Complainant who was called as witness no. 3. He testified under solemn affirmation that on the material date Accused hit him with a wire rope and he sustained knee and hand injuries. During cross-examination, he was questioned about his previous written statement in which he mentioned that the incident was near the playground whereas in Court he said that the incident happened behind the restaurant of Accused. He argued that the latter assaulted him from the playground to the restaurant. When asked why he did not mention in his statement about Accused assaulting him with a knife unlike in his testimony, he replied that Accused sent people to stab him with a knife. When asked why this is not in his statement, he replied that he does not know why this is not in his statement, and around 15 persons were there. When asked how Accused hit him from the playground to the restaurant, he replied that the latter was on a motorcycle, and several persons ran after him and hit him with wood.

Witness no. 2, WPC 1077 Damry, testified under solemn affirmation that she recorded a statement from Accused on 25.08.2022, she noticed a scratch mark on his left arm, and Accused was given a PF 58.

From the dock, Accused denied the charge. He explained that witness no. 3 used to consume food from his snack and would not pay. He added that he refused to give him credit facility, and the latter levelled a false charge against him.

“Coups et blessures” is defined in Vocabulaire Juridique, Cornu, as follows : « Atteinte portée à l’intégrité physique d’autrui : les blessures impliquant une lésion interne ou externe du corps de la victime (ex. plaie, fracture), les coups portés directement par une personne ou à l’aide d’un instrument quelconque consistant en un choc infligé (ex. coup de poing, coup de baton) ».

As regards the elements that need to be established by Prosecution, note 11 of Répertoire de droit pénal et de procédure pénale, Violences volontaires, Yves MAYAUD, is of relevance : « La violence se matérialise par un comportement (V. infra, nos 12 et s.), un résultat (V. infra, nos 22 et s.), et un lien de causalité du premier au second (V. infra, nos 54 et s.). Cette trilogie est d'ailleurs le propre de toutes les violences, qu'elles soient intentionnelles ou non intentionnelles, tant, pour les placer parmi les atteintes à l'intégrité de la personne, elles doivent, non seulement relever d'une action dirigée vers un tel résultat, mais encore participer d'un comportement l'ayant effectivement généré. »

Here, various inconsistencies have been elicited during cross-examination between the testimony of witness no. 3 in Court and his previous statement, namely, concerning where the alleged assault occurred and how it was perpetrated. His account of what happened on the material date is confusing. Initially, he said that Accused hit him with a wire rope behind his restaurant. Then, he went on to say that the assault started from the playground, Accused was riding a motorcycle, and his confederates ran after him, hit him with wood and stabbed him with a knife. But there is nothing on record to support his contention that he was stabbed with a knife apart from his mere ipse dixit. Witness no. 2 is an independent witness. She stated that she noticed a scratch mark on the forearm of witness no. 3, and her testimony does not tally with the description given by Accused of his alleged injuries on the knees and hands.

In addition, there is nothing on record to explain why witness no. 3 recorded his statement almost 2 weeks after the alleged incident. As such, the risk of concoction cannot be ignored especially that it transpires from Accused’s version that witness no. 3 owed him money and he declined to give him credit facility.

On the basis of the above, the Court finds Accused not guilty. Accordingly, the case against him is dismissed.

Z Cassamally (Dr) Ag. Senior District Magistrate 07.04.2026