STATE v.

TAKOORDYAL A
2017 SCJ 2
Record No.: CS 9/16
THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

In the matter of:The State

v
Ashish Takoordyal
-----------JUDGMENT
The accused has pleaded guilty to the offence of manslaughter committed on the 9th January
2014, namely the killing of Bahanoomatee Takoordyal born Ramlochun, in breach of
sections 215 and 223(3) of the Criminal Code. I therefore find him guilty as charged.

SENTENCE
The circumstances in which the offence took place can be gathered from the three written
statements voluntarily given by the accused to the police between the 29th January and the 7th
February 2014.

The accused met his wife (the victim) in 1996 and they were married two years later. A son was
born in 2001 but problems between the spouses had already started four months into the
marriage. He in fact began suspecting his wife of adultery since 2003. On the 8th January 2014,
his son related to him that on the 5th of that same month his mother took him to the cinema
where she met a man with whom she spent the night while the accused was working and while
her son was with her. He was especially upset by the fact that his wife had taken their son
along. On that same evening he came back from work shortly after midnight without warning.
After a few minutes an argument started between him and his wife and he became angry and

2
forcefully pushed her because of what she had said to him. She fell down before she lost
consciousness.

It was then that the accused made up his mind to kill her. He straddled his wifes unconscious
body and applied pressure to her neck for 10 minutes until he saw her gasping for air. He
nevertheless continued pressing on her throat until she was lifeless. He then hid her body under
a bed and subsequently used her ATM card to withdraw money to rent a car and to buy a
grinder as well as raffia bags in order to dispose of her body.

The accused was also careful enough to attend his workplace in order to clock-in before going
back to his place to cold-bloodedly cut off his dead wifes legs with the grinder so that her body
parts could fit into the raffia bags which he had bought earlier. He then placed them in the boot
of the rented car before he went to pick up his son while his mothers remains were still lying in
the boot. He even went to the extent of using the victims cellular phone to send short messages
to himself and to his in-laws in order to avoid suspicion. The accused eventually dumped his
wifes body parts near a river after he had cleaned up the crime scene. It was only when he
learnt that the police had taken his son to Line Barracks that he decided to make a clean breast
of it. It was confirmed during the hearing that he had cooperated with the police and also that his
wife had in fact spent the night with a named person while her son was with her on the 5th of
January.

The accused made a short statement from the dock to the effect that he had committed the
offence because his wife was unfaithful and because she had taken their son along on the last
occasion she spent the night outside their house. He had also been upset because of the way
she had reacted during their last argument and he had lost his temper. He stated that he
sincerely regretted what he had done and that he did not intend for it to end in such a way. He
had worked very hard for his family and he tendered his apologies to the victims and to his own
family before he asked for leniency from the Court.

Mrs Purryag-Ramful who appeared for the prosecution made reference to certain parts of the
statements given by the accused to the police which, she submitted, indicated that he had
derived pleasure in inflicting pain to his victim.

She thus called for the maximum penalty of 45 years penal servitude since the accused had
been merciless in the way he caused the victims death and in the light of the beastly manner in
which he had acted throughout. Counsel also referred to the fact that the accused had carefully
planned the way in which he was to dispose of the body and cut it into pieces, which in
counsels submission, was in itself an affront to human integrity.

Mr Pyneandee who appeared for the defence submitted in turn that the Court could use its
discretion whilst sentencing in the light of the mitigating circumstances, especially since the
accused had not wasted the time of the Court through his guilty plea. Reference was also made
to the degree of mens rea and the issue of provocation and to the accuseds confessions to the
police, among other elements.

I have considered the evidence adduced, the submissions of counsel, as well as the statement
made by the accused from the dock. In the case of R v Daniel Jones [2013] EWCA Crim 2839,
reference was made to the decision in Attorney Generals References Nos. 19, 20 and 21 of
2001 (Byrne and others) [2001] EWCA Crim 1432, where the Court had identified a number of
factors that had to be considered when determining the appropriate sentence in cases of
manslaughter. These were: (1) the context in which death was caused, (2) whether violence of
any kind was contemplated or intended by the defendant, (3) the risk inherent in what was being
done and the extent to which this must have been apparent, and (4) the behaviour of the
defendant after inflicting the unintended serious injury. The above considerations were also
reproduced whilst sentencing in the case of The State v Georges [2015 SCJ 172], as referred
to by learned counsel for the prosecution.

I have thus borne in mind that the accused confessed to the crime, that he cooperated with the
police, that he has a clean record, and that he pleaded guilty reasonably promptly.

I also take note of the Legislatures clear intention that crimes such as the present one should
be treated with more severity than in the past, since in 2007 the maximum penalty was
increased from 20 to 45 years penal servitude.

Having stated the above, it cannot be easily overlooked that by his own account the accused
intentionally committed a sustained assault on his unconscious wife for more than 10 minutes
although she showed clear signs of asphyxia and distress during the prolonged assault. The
accuseds behaviour following the killing, namely the gruesome dismemberment of his wifes
body and its ensuing meticulous disposal, together with the fake phone messages made from
the deceaseds phone, further amount to clear aggravating circumstances all connoting a
carefully planned scheme to conceal the crime and avoid suspicion.

This Court is also mindful of the upsurge of serious acts of domestic violence being committed
in this country which all too often result in the loss of precious lives or in extreme injuries being
inflicted to helpless victims. These serious acts of domestic violence therefore call for a strong
and clear signal to potentially like-minded offenders that such crimes will be treated with severity
and that domestic violence is not a possible avenue when conflicts arise in a marriage or in a
relationship.

For all the above reasons, and after giving him the adequate discount in relation to the
mitigating factors, I sentence the accused to undergo 35 years penal servitude, from which shall
be deducted 80% of the 1064 days spent on remand (851 days), and which shall be deemed as
served sentence. He is further ordered to pay RS 1, 000 for costs.

N. F. Oh San-Bellepeau
Judge
-----------------------12th January 2017

For The State:

Mrs A Purryag-Ramful, Senior State Counsel and Miss N R

Patten, State Counsel

For the Accused:

Mr C Pyneandee, of Counsel