The Uttarakhand High Court has stated that in the absence of scientific evidence, a charge of drunk driving or an offence under Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) cannot be established solely on the basis of the smell of alcohol.
Event Context
The court observed that it must be proven, through a blood test or a breath analyser test, that the alcohol level in a person’s body exceeded the limit prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Team Analysis
While hearing a criminal revision petition on Wednesday, Justice Alok Mehrah set aside, in part, a Sessions Court order that had framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 125(a) (negligent act endangering human life or personal safety), 125(b) (endangering the life or safety of others due to negligence), and 281 (rash and negligent driving on public ways) of the BNS.
The petitioner, Amar Singh, was driving a jeep carrying several passengers from Badrinath Dham towards Chamoli. En route, the jeep went out of control and overturned, resulting in the death of one passenger and injuries to several others.
A medical examination following the accident revealed the smell of alcohol on Singh’s breath. However, neither a blood sample was collected nor was a breath analyser test conducted.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person can be convicted of drunk driving only if a scientific test proves that the alcohol content in their blood exceeded 30 mg per 100 ml.
It was also argued that the accident occurred not due to the driver’s negligence but because of a vehicle malfunction-specifically, a burst front tyre that caused the jeep to lose its balance.
The High Court observed that although the medical report noted the smell of alcohol on the driver’s breath, the prosecution failed to present any scientific evidence to establish the state of intoxication as defined by law.
The court held that the material gathered during the investigation did not, prima facie, satisfy the necessary conditions for framing charges under Section 105 of the BNS. However, it ruled that the charges framed against the accused under Sections 125(a), 125(b), and 281 of the BNS would remain in force.
