Bayjoo v R

1992 MR 197
1992 SCJ 9

Lallah SPJ, Yeung Sik Yuen J

…

The appellant was charged before the District Court of Port Louis on an
information reading as follows:-

"MAURITIUS
Cause No. 2337/90(n)
INFORMATION UPON OATH
CHARGE OF ASSAULT
Breach of Section 230(i) of Criminal Code Act
DISTRICT OF PORT LOUIS
Inspector Rene of the said District Maketh Oath and saith as follows:

That on the 10th day of March one thousand nine hundred and
ninety at Leoville L'Homme Street in the said District one AHMAD
RAJACK BAYJOO, 22 yrs, clerk, residing at No. 5 St Francois Xavier
Street, Port Louis, did wilfully and unlawfully inflict wounds and blows in
and upon the person of one VIJAY RAMRACHIA."

The learned Magistrate found the appellant (then accused) guilty as

charged for the offence of assault and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs 250
and Rs 100 costs.

The appeal is on the following grounds:

1. "The conviction of the Appellant is wrong inasmuch as the Learned

Magistrate erred in -

(a) holding that the appellant is charged with the offence of

assault.

(b) finding the appellant guilty as charged with offence of

assault, when the information preferred against the appellant
is one for the offence of wounds and blows.

C:\My Documents\Judgmt1992\Bayjoo v R 1992 MR 197.doc

 2. Because the Learned Magistrate erred in rejecting the version of
the Appellant and failed to give any reason for doing so.

3. Because the Learned Magistrate erred in holding that the incident

occurred in the manner described by witness Ramrachia and in
finding that the said witness is a truthful witness."

Grounds 2 and 3 can be taken together and can be disposed of shortly.

The Magistrate found that witness Ramrachia had sustained certain injuries. This
was confirmed by the Medical Examination Certificate (Form 58). On the other
hand, the appellant had denied having inflicted any injury stating that he could
not explain how Ramrachia got injured. One cannot blame the Magistrate for
acting on evidence which was before her to reach the conclusions she did.

As regards Ground 1, Counsel for the appellant addressed us at length on

the difference existing between assault and wounds and blows and submitted that
the learned Magistrate had erroneously convicted the appellant of assault on an
information charging him with the offence of wounds and blows. It is true that
in France a distinction is made between "coups et blessures", "violences" and
"voies de fait". We find the following interesting note in Encyclopédie Dalloz,
Droit Pénal Vo Coups et blessures:

La terminologie de notre droit positif distingue diverses formes de

violences (au sens large), ce terme général englobant diverses
dénominations (y compris les "violences" au sens étroit".

The same notes goes with the following further observations:

“La loi n'attache d'ailleurs pas une importance juridique tr ès grande à

l'emploi de l'une ou l'autre de ces dénominations, celles de "coups"
et celle de "blessures" étant, par exemple, presque constamment
associées l'une à l'autre. Y aurait-il d'ailleurs une qualification
propre à chacune de ces dénominations que la similitude des peines
encourues empêcherait toute cassation, par application de la th éorie
de la peine justifiée. - Cependant, la juge doit, à peine de nullit é
de sa décision, spécifier en quoi ont consist é les violences retenues,
à moins que cela ne résulte de la reproduction des dispositions
légales.

The legal characteristics peculiar to "voies de fait" which has been

translated in the body of section 230 of our Criminal Code as "assault" are
clearly set out in Encyclopédie Dalloz (supra) at note 9:

C:\My Documents\Judgmt1992\Bayjoo v R 1992 MR 197.doc

 “Les “voies de fait” ont été incriminées par la loi du 13 mai 1863
pour réprimer les violences volontaires qui ne constituaient
techniquement ni des coups ni des blessures (GARCON, art. 309-
311, no. 11). Ces agissements, qui s'apparentent aux coups, s'en
distinguent surtout par le peu de gravité de l'acte lui-m ême et par
les conséquences réduites qu'il a produites. Les voies de fait
peuvent ne pas laisser de trace sur le corps de l'individu. Ainsi,
constitue de simples voies de fait le fait de bousculer
intentionnellement quelqu'un, de le jeter à terre, de lui fermer
brutalement la porte au nez, de lui cracher au visage.”

In fact, articles 309 and 311 of the French Code P énal which initially
mentioned only "des blessures et des coups" was amended by the loi du 13 mai
1863 mentioned above to put an end to a controversy which had arisen from the
wide scope given by the French Courts to the interpretation of "blessures et
coups".

In Mauritius the origin of our present Criminal Code can be traced back
to the year 1793 when by an “Arrêté de l'Assemblée Coloniale” of 7 August
of that year the “Code Pénal” was promulgated in what was then a French
colony. That “Arrêté” was abrogated "en termes généraux" by Ordinance 6 of
1838 under the appellation of the ‘Penal Code Ordinance” (subsequently
referred to as the Ordinance) - see Rouillard's “Collection of the Laws of
Mauritius and its Dependencies” - Volume 1 at page 492.

When the Ordinance was passed it contained an innovation the sense that
besides the French text an English translation was also introduced.

Section 230 of the Ordinance reads as follows:

230. Lorsque les blessures ou les 231. If such wound or blow shall not
coups n'auront occasionné have occasioned any sickness or
aucune maladie ni incapacité de incapacity from personal labour
travail personnel de l'espèce of the description mentioned in
mentionnée dans l'article 228, le article 228 the offender shall be
coupable sera puni d'un punished by imprisonment not
emprisonnement qui ne pourra exceeding one year, and by a
excéder un an, et d'une amende fine not exceeding five hundred
qui n'excèdera pas cinquante rupees.
livres sterling.
And, if there have been

C:\My Documents\Judgmt1992\Bayjoo v R 1992 MR 197.doc

 S'il y a eu prémédication ou
guet-apens, le coupable sera puni
de l'emprisonnement et d'une
amende qui ne pourra excéder
cent livres sterling.
premeditation or lying in wait,
the offender shall be punished
by imprisonment, and by a fine
not exceeding one thousand
rupees.

That section was subsequently amended by Act 25 of 1970 which

substituted -

(a) in the French text, for the words "ou les coups" the
following words and punctuation"", les coups ou autres
violences ou voies de fait"; and

(b) in the English text, for the words "or blow" the following
words and punctuation: ", blow or other violence or
assault:”.

That amendment was obviously introduced to bring our text in conformity

with the amendment brought in France by the “Loi du 13 mai 1863”.

When the laws of Mauritius were revised in 1981, the Penal Code
Ordinance was renamed the Criminal Code. Section 230 was renumbered so as
to contain two subsections and the English text was slightly modified in
compliance with the exigencies of modern drafting. A title denoting the nature
of the offence was also added to the English text at the heading of each Section
of the new Criminal Code. The title of Section 230 which reads "Assault",
although obviously used in its generic sense is, however, infelicitous since the
same section also covers the specific offence bearing the same name
corresponding to the offence of "voies de fait" in the French text.

The French translation of the word "assault" in Harrap's Standard French

and English Dictionary (Part Two) 1971 edition reads as follows:

ASSAULT, 1. Attaquer, assaillir (une position);…

2. Attaquer, charged with assaulting someone , accusé
de s'être porté, livré, à des voies de fait sur quelqu'un.

To be assaulted , être victime (i) d'une agression, (ii)

d'un attentat à la pudeur.

Again it shows that the word "assault" can mean to aggress generally.

C:\My Documents\Judgmt1992\Bayjoo v R 1992 MR 197.doc

 In England assault and battery constitute two distinct crimes at common
law but it is frequent in ordinary usage, and even in statutes, to use the term
"assault" to cover both - (Smith and Hogan Criminal Law (1 edition,
Butterworths, London, 1965) page 261).

This common ordinary usage of the word "assault" is clearly reflected in

our own law in the title appearing in section 230 of the Criminal Code which
was borrowed in the heading of the information.

We have considered the evidence led before the trial Court, more
specially the medical evidence and the terms of the Magistrate's judgment. It
appears abundantly clear that the "offence of assault", with which the appellant
was said to be charged and against whom it was found proved, was used by the
Magistrate in its generic sense which covers, inter alia, the offence of simple
wounds and blows expressly spelled out in the body of the information.

We are, however, of the opinion that the use of the word "assault" in the
judgment of the learned Magistrate, although descriptive of an offence with
clearly defined legal elements, was unfelicitous in the circumstances since it was
meant to cover some different offence with different legal components although
the latter could be encompassed by the same word when used in a wider or
generic sense.

The refined distinctions made by learned Counsel for the appellant are,
however, more technical than legal and it cannot be reasonably said that the
appellant suffered any prejudice. We shall merely substitute the Magistrate's
conviction for assault by one of wounds and blows.

The appeal is otherwise dismissed with costs.

Record No. 5389

C:\My Documents\Judgmt1992\Bayjoo v R 1992 MR 197.doc