The Uttarakhand High Court said that in the absence of scientific evidence, a charge of drunk driving or an offense under Section 105 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) cannot be proven on the basis of smell of alcohol alone.
The court noted that it must be proven, through a blood test or breath analysis test, that the level of alcohol in a person’s body exceeded the limit stipulated under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
While hearing the criminal review petition on Wednesday, Justice Alok Mehra, in part, set aside the order of the Sessions Court that 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) (negligently endangering life or safety of others), and 281 (rash and negligent driving on public places). methods) of BNS.
The petitioner, Amar Singh, was driving a jeep carrying several passengers from Badrinath Dham towards Chamoli. On the way, the jeep went out of control and overturned, killing one passenger and injuring others.
A medical examination following the accident revealed the smell of alcohol on Singh’s breath. However, no blood sample was collected and a breath analysis test was not performed.
The petitioner’s counsel said that under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a person can be convicted of drunk driving unless a scientific test proves that the alcohol content in his blood exceeds 30 mg per 100 ml.
It was also said that the accident did not occur due to the driver’s negligence, but rather due to a malfunction in the car, specifically a front tire explosion that caused the Jeep to lose its balance.
The Supreme Court noted that although the medical report indicated the smell of alcohol on the driver’s breath, the prosecution failed to provide any scientific evidence to prove the state of intoxication as defined by law.
The court held that the materials collected during the investigation did not, prima facie, meet the necessary conditions for bringing charges under Section 105 of the Banking Law. However, it ruled that the charges against the accused under Sections 125(a), 125(b) and 281 of the National Services Act would remain valid.
