Back
A Breathalyser Test is Necessary: Uttarakhand HC Limits Scope of Charges
In a significant ruling concerning the required to frame criminal charges, the has clarified that the subjective perception of the "smell of alcohol" is insufficient to establish the offense of . Justice Alok Mahra, while presiding over a filed by Amar Singh, held that without scientific evidence—such as a breathalyser or blood test—a charge under , cannot be sustained.
The Backdrop: A Fatal Accident The case stems from a tragic accident involving a jeep traveling from Shri Badrinath Ji to Chamoli. According to police reports, the vehicle overturned near the Shani Temple in Bedubagar, resulting in injuries to passengers and the unfortunate death of one occupant. Following the incident, the framed charges against the driver, Amar Singh, under .
The defense challenged the framing of the charge under Section 105, arguing that the investigation ignored key mechanical evidence and lacked the scientific rigor required to prove intoxication.
Arguments from Both Sides For the Revisionist (Appellant): The defense argued that the accident was caused by a technical failure—specifically, a sudden burst of the left front tyre, as confirmed by the official technical inspection report. They highlighted that eyewitnesses consistently stated the driver was operating the vehicle normally and showed no signs of intoxication during the journey. Regarding the medical report noting the "smell of alcohol," the defense contended it was legally void, as no blood sample or breathalyser test was conducted to determine if the alcohol concentration exceeded the 30mg/100ml threshold prescribed by .
For the State (Respondent): The State maintained that the circumstances of the accident and the medical observation of alcohol on the driver's breath were sufficient to warrant proceeding with the charges, arguing that the trial court acted within its discretion to frame charges based on the material available.
Legal Analysis: The Statutory Threshold The Court’s analysis centered on the gap between "suspicion" and " evidence." Justice Mahra emphasized that for an offense related to intoxication to hold, the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused crossed the defined by the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court distinguished between casual observation and scientific necessity, noting that the technical inspection report specifically attributed the accident to a tire burst. By setting aside the Section 105 charge, the High Court reaffirmed that a criminal trial must be grounded in objective scientific evidence rather than subjective inferences during the initial charge-framing stage.
Key Observations The judgment underscores the importance of scientific procedures in criminal investigations:
-
"The technical inspection report indicates that the accident occurred on account of the bursting of the left front tyre."
-
"The statements of the eyewitnesses recorded during investigation do not attribute rash or negligent driving to the revisionist, nor do they indicate that he was under the influence of any intoxicating substance."
-
"Although the medical examination records the smell of alcohol in the breath of the revisionist, no blood sample or any other scientific test was conducted to establish that the alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory limit."
-
"This Court finds that the material collected during investigation does not
disclose the essential ingredients necessary for framing a charge under Section 105 of the B.N.S.S., 2023."
Final Decision: Balancing Justice The High Court partly allowed the criminal revision. While the charge under Section 105 of the BNSS, 2023, was set aside due to a lack of evidence regarding intoxication, the Court clarified that all other charges, including Sections 125(a), 125(b), and 281, remain unaffected. The Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2025 is ordered to proceed as per law.
This ruling serves as a vital reminder to investigative agencies that the regarding intoxication requires adherence to established scientific protocols, ensuring that grave charges are not framed mechanically without proper evidentiary foundations.
