Drunk Driving Laws And Penalties
1. Governing Law
In India, drunk driving is primarily governed by:
Section 185, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act)
A person is considered to be driving under the influence if:
Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) exceeds 30 mg per 100 ml, detected via breath analyzer; or
The driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs to such an extent that he is incapable of controlling the vehicle.
Punishment under Section 185
First Offence:
Fine up to ₹10,000
Imprisonment up to 6 months, or both
Driving license suspension possible
Subsequent Offence (within 3 years):
Fine up to ₹15,000
Imprisonment up to 2 years, or both
Other Related Provisions
Section 205 MV Act: Refusal to provide a breath or blood sample is an offence.
Section 202 MV Act: Police has power to arrest without warrant.
IPC Sections applicable in severe cases
Sec 279 IPC – Rash driving
Sec 304A IPC – Causing death by negligence
Sec 304 IPC – Culpable homicide (if knowledge of risk is proven)
DETAILED CASE LAW DISCUSSION (MORE THAN FIVE CASES)
Below are 8 major judgments with in-depth explanations.
1. State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998)
Key Issue: Whether high-speed driving automatically constitutes "rash and negligent driving."
Facts:
The accused was driving a vehicle at high speed which overturned, resulting in death. The trial court acquitted him; the High Court confirmed the acquittal.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that speed alone is not enough to establish negligence.
However, the Court observed that if alcohol influence is involved, negligence can be inferred from circumstances even if scientific BAC is unavailable.
Relevance to Drunk Driving:
Although not directly about alcohol, this case is used in DUI cases to show that negligence can be inferred from circumstances when combined with intoxication.
2. Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)
Key Issue: Whether drunk driving leading to death should be punished under IPC Section 304 (culpable homicide) instead of 304A.
Facts:
The accused drove his car under the influence of alcohol and killed seven people sleeping on a footpath.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that:
If a person drives drunk and at high speed, he has knowledge that death is likely.
Hence, such acts may fall under Section 304 (Part II) IPC, not just 304A.
Relevance:
This case made Indian DUI laws much stricter by ruling that drunk drivers can be charged with culpable homicide, not just negligence.
3. Sukumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011)
Key Issue: Evidentiary value of breath analyzer tests.
Facts:
The accused claimed the breathalyzer test was faulty and demanded a blood test.
Held:
The Court ruled:
Breath analyzer test results are valid evidence, unless strong contrary proof is shown.
Refusal to give a blood sample can be considered adverse inference.
Relevance:
This ensures that police breath tests are legally enforceable and cannot be easily challenged.
4. State v. Sarda Devi (Delhi High Court, 2008)
Key Issue: Liability for refusal to provide breath or blood sample.
Facts:
The accused refused to blow into a breathalyzer after being stopped at a police checkpoint.
Held:
Refusal attracts Section 205 MV Act.
Refusal to cooperate creates a presumption of intoxication.
Relevance:
Establishes that drivers cannot escape liability by avoiding tests.
5. Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2014)
Key Issue: Whether minor discrepancy in BAC reading invalidates prosecution.
Facts:
Accused argued that the breathalyzer was not calibrated recently.
Held:
Court held:
Minor technical errors do not invalidate the test.
The combination of smell of alcohol, unsteady movement, and test results is sufficient for conviction.
Relevance:
Clarifies that technical objections cannot defeat prosecution if other evidence indicates intoxication.
6. Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab (2017)
Key Issue: Drunk driving combined with rash driving.
Facts:
Accused ran over a motorcyclist while drunk.
Held:
Court enhanced the sentence, holding that:
Drunk driving is aggravated negligence.
Leniency is not justified in such cases.
Relevance:
Shows courts increasingly favor strict punishment for DUI.
7. Uttarakhand Transport Corp. v. Sohan Singh (1997)
Key Issue: Employer liability when driver is intoxicated.
Facts:
A bus driver employed by transport corporation caused an accident under intoxication.
Held:
Employer not liable because:
Intoxication is a personal misconduct, outside the scope of employment.
Relevance:
Important for compensation claims and employer liability in DUI cases.
8. Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. (2008)
Key Issue: Driving under influence as a criminal rash act.
Facts:
The driver caused an accident while drunk.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that:
Combining intoxication with driving constitutes recklessness.
Courts must impose deterrent sentences.
Relevance:
Strengthens the legal position that drunk driving is inherently a criminally negligent act.
CONCLUSION
Indian law treats drunk driving as a serious criminal offence, and courts have consistently upheld:
Strict enforcement of BAC limits
High evidentiary value of breath analyzer tests
Harsh punishment especially where injury or death occurs
Possibility of being charged with culpable homicide if driver had knowledge of risk
The above cases collectively show that:
Courts are not tolerant of DUI
Technical objections rarely help the accused
Sentences are increasingly severe
RELATED Blog
0 comments