Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 6

A local court has acquitted a Kharar resident on the charges of drunken driving in the absence of any blood or urine sample report. While acquitting the person, the court says the medical report given by the duty doctor was based on the smell of alcohol coming from the breath of the accused but the possibility of such smell from taking cough syrup could not be ruled out.

What the court says

It is obligatory on the prosecution to medically examine the accused either by taking a urine sample or a blood sample, but no such examination was done by the prosecution, the court stated in its order.

The police arrested Gaurav Verma of Kharar, on July 13, 2021, on the charges of driving in a drunken state and creating a nuisance after registering a DRR against him for the offence punishable under section 185 of the MV Act.

As per the prosecution, the accused had parked his vehicle in front of the main gate of a police station and was creating a nuisance. The prosecution alleged that when they asked him to stop, he started quarrelling with them. The police claimed that the accused smelled a breath of alcohol.

They claimed that the accused was taken to the GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh, and his medical examination was conducted which confirmed he had consumed alcohol. On the basis of a complaint, a DDR was registered and statements of witnesses were recorded.

After the completion of investigation, “Kalandra” was presented in the court under Section 185 of the MV Act. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, a notice of accusation was served on him to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

Counsel for the accused SS Rana argued that the accused had been falsely implicated in the case.

After hearing the arguments, Sanjay, JMIC, Chandigarh, observed that “The allegation that the accused was in a drunken state can only be proved by way of evidence of the doctor concerned who has medically examined the accused. But the prosecution did not examine the doctor concerned. Therefore, even if the testimony of the IO is considered, still that is not sufficient to prove that the accused was in a drunkard state while he was driving an impugned vehicle.

“Because for proving the alleged offence, it is obligatory on the prosecution to medically examine the accused either by taking a urine sample or a blood sample but no such examination was done by the prosecution. Also, the IO is very much interested in the success of the present case.

“But once his testimony is not supported by any oral as well as documentary evidence, then it is not safe to base conviction merely on the deposition of the IO. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegation on record.

“Hence, the benefit of the doubt goes in favour of the accused as the relevant witnesses concerned are not joined at the time of investigation and also not examined during the trial of the case. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the accused is acquitted of the charge framed against him by extending the benefit of the doubt.”