Drunk Driving Prosecutions
Drunk-driving prosecutions aim to hold drivers criminally liable for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol beyond the permitted limit (0.03% BAC or 30 mg per 100 ml of blood in India). The prosecution must typically prove:
1. Actus Reus (The Act)
The accused was driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle.
The driving was on a public road or public place.
The conduct showed negligence or rashness (IPC) or simply driving under the influence (MVA).
2. Mens Rea (Mental Element)
Under IPC (e.g., Section 279 or 304-A), the prosecution must show negligence or rashness.
Under MVA Section 185, intent is irrelevant; only the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) matters.
3. Evidence Typically Required
Breath analyzer test (preliminary)
Blood test (gold standard)
Testimony of police officers
Accident reconstruction evidence, if applicable
CCTV footage, witness testimony
Medical report showing intoxication symptoms
4. Penalties
Under §185 MVA:
First offense → imprisonment up to 6 months or fine up to ₹10,000, or both.
Second offense → up to 2 years imprisonment or fine of ₹15,000.
If an accident causes hurt or death, IPC sections 279/338/304-A apply, increasing punishment.
⭐ Key Case Laws Explained in Detail
1. State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998)
Issue
Whether high speed alone constitutes rash and negligent driving under IPC Sections 279/304-A.
Held
The Supreme Court held:
Speed alone does not establish negligence.
The prosecution must show concrete evidence of:
drunkenness,
rash conduct, or
disregard for safety.
Relevance to Drunk Driving
If police only prove:
the vehicle was fast, but not that the driver was intoxicated,
then the prosecution fails. Courts require objective proof like BAC reports.
2. Rajesh Kumar @ Raju v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)
Facts
The accused, allegedly drunk, caused an accident resulting in fatalities. BAC test was conducted.
Held
The Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 185 MVA read with IPC 304-A.
The Court emphasized that a valid scientific test (blood test) combined with eyewitness accounts of erratic driving proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Importance
This case clarified:
The prosecution must produce blood test reports, not merely rely on police testimony.
If the test complies with procedure, the defense cannot argue minor technical flaws.
3. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar (2019)
Facts
The accused refused to undergo a breathalyzer test after being suspected of drunk driving.
Held
Refusal to undergo a test can be treated as a presumption of guilt, provided:
Police follow proper procedure,
The accused was informed of the legal consequences.
Importance
This case supports the prosecution when:
An accused refuses a chemical test.
Courts may draw a negative inference, strengthening the prosecution’s case.
4. Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)
Facts
The accused, under intoxication, drove onto a pavement, killing seven persons.
Held
The Supreme Court held the act constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC), because:
Drunk driving with knowledge of its dangerous consequences shows criminal knowledge.
Importance
This case is crucial because:
It elevated certain drunk-driving deaths from negligence (Section 304-A) to culpable homicide, a much more serious offense.
Prosecution can use this precedent when the act is grossly reckless.
5. Sajeed v. State of Kerala (2000)
Facts
The accused, allegedly intoxicated, caused a fatal accident. The prosecution relied heavily on witness testimony regarding the smell of alcohol.
Held
Mere smell of alcohol is not sufficient evidence to convict for Section 185 MVA.
The prosecution must show:
BAC report, OR
clear evidence of impaired driving.
Importance
This case helps clarify boundaries:
Police must conduct proper scientific tests.
Courts reject convictions based on subjective observation alone.
6. K. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala (2017)
Facts
Driver caused serious injuries; police conducted a breathalyzer test immediately.
Held
Breathalyzer test results are admissible when:
the device is calibrated,
operated by trained personnel,
and the accused’s rights are protected.
Importance
This case gives a strong legal foundation for:
Admissibility of breathalyzer results,
Validity of roadside testing procedures,
Standard operating procedure for police.
📌 How These Cases Guide Drunk-Driving Prosecutions
They establish important principles:
✔ Scientific evidence (BAC test) is essential
✔ Driver’s conduct must show rashness/negligence (IPC cases)
✔ Refusal to take a test may imply guilt
✔ Mere smell of alcohol is insufficient
✔ Extreme cases can amount to culpable homicide (not merely negligent driving)
RELATED Blog
0 comments