Supreme Court of Mauritius, 8 juillet 2020, 2020 PL2 70 – Pce v Naugeer

T h e P a g e | 1

Pce v Naugeer

2020 PL2 70

POLICE v NAUGEER Ahmad Goolriaz

CN:8738/19 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (2nd Division) In the matter of:

POLICE V NAUGEER Ahmad Goolriaz

JUDGMENT

Accused stands charged with the offence of Assault in breach of sections 228(1) and 230 (1) of the Criminal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and was not represented at trial stage. PF 58 was produced and marked as Doc A. Prosecution called witness no.2, Mr Ismet Mahomed Khan, the complainant, who related that the accused is his wife’s lover and that on 28/02/16 at 3.20 p.m, whilst at the Mosque, the accused came from behind and saluted him. The complainant told the accused that he was living in sin, following which the accused dealt him three blows on his head and punched him twice with his right hand on his back. He went to the hospital and took a PF 58. The witness was cross-examined.

T h e P a g e | 2

Prosecution called witness no.1, PC Hosany who read and produced defence statement of the accused, marked as Doc B The case was then closed for the Prosecution. The accused was informed of his Constitutional rights in creole and elected to make a statement from the dock and denied the charge. The accused explained that the complainant cannot digest the fact that he married his ex-wife. Accused called as defence witness, Mrs Madiha Mohamad, who related that the complainant is his father and that on the material day when he came out of the Mosque, he was with her and that he never reported to her that he was assaulted, given he generally informs her of any such occurrence. She added that the complainant appeared normal and bore no injuries. The witness was cross-examined. The case was then closed for the Defence. The Court has considered the evidence on record and has carefully watched the witnesses. • Section 230(1) of the Criminal Code provides: « Lorsque les blessures, les coups ou autres violences ou voies de fait n’auront occasionné aucune maladie ni incapacité de travail personnel de l’espèce mentionnée dans la section 228, le coupable sera puni d’un emprisonnement qui ne pourra excéder un an et d’une amende qui n’ excéderera pas 5,000 roupies. » « Traité de Droit Criminel, Droit Pénal spécial, Merle et Vitu », 2eme Partie, page 1400 defines “la notion du coup” as follows: « Pour la plupart des auteurs, les coups consistaient en toute impression faite sur le corps de la victime par un contact brutal, un choc, même si cette impression ne laisse aucune trace, mais seulement des hématomes, des contusions, des ecchymoses. Les blessures étaient quelque chose de plus et supposaient une rupture de la peau ou des muqueuses, entrainant souvent, mais pas toujours, une effusion de sang : des fractures, brulures, piqures, plaies diverses étaient réputes constituer des blessures » « Traité de Droit Criminel, Droit Pénal spécial, Merle et Vitu », 2eme Partie, page 1404 defines the mental element as follows :

T h e P a g e | 3

« L’acte doit être conscient-l ’auteur savait ou devait savoir qu’il causait dommage a l’intégrité corporelle d’autrui et volontaire, en ce sens qu’il a agi dans le dessein de nuire a la victime. En l’absence d’intention, il y aurait seulement des coups et blessures involontaires. Selon le droit commun, le mobile est sans influence sur la constitution juridique de l’infraction. Le coupable est animé ordinairement d’une volonté agressive, d’un désir de nuire ou d’un sentiment de vengeance. » The Court noted the following: • Witness no.2, the complainant, gave a version of facts which failed to convince the Court. His demeanour in Court was far from that of a witness of truth and left the Court dubious as to his credibility. • There appears to be bad blood between the parties. • The daughter of complainant testified in favour of the accused and there is nothing on record to suggest that the witness harbours ill feelings towards her father, so that the Court finds no reason to doubt her version of facts. • The PF 58 makes mention of soft tissue injuries and the Court notes that the accused attended hospital at 9.20 p.m, i.e some six hours after alleged events.

The behaviour of the complainant in Court has affected his testimony globally, so that it would be unsafe to rely on his evidence.

Therefore, given that the shadow of a doubt has been cast over the evidence ushered in by the Prosecution, the Court finds that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt.

The Prosecution having failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the case is accordingly dismissed.

Mrs Manjula Kumari Boojharut (District Magistrate)

T h e P a g e | 4

Delivered on 08 July 2020