Patna High Court rules that a breath analyser test is not sufficient for proving alcohol consumption, stressing that only blood or urine tests can conclusively establish guilt under prohibition laws.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: The Patna High Court has once again reaffirmed the principle that a conviction for alcohol consumption cannot rest solely on a breath analyser test, without corroboration through medical examination, such as blood or urine analysis.
In Manoj Murmu v. State of Bihar, Justice Alok Kumar Pandey set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Manoj Murmu, was alleged to have been found in a drunken state based on a breath analyzer test conducted by the investigating officer. Acting on this report, a case was registered, and the Trial Court convicted him under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, sentencing him to one year of simple imprisonment.
The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that:
- No blood or urine test was conducted.
- The place of occurrence was never identified or proved.
- The informant doubled as the investigating officer, compromising the fairness of the investigation.
- The breath analyser test was unreliable and not supported by Section 65B certification under the Indian Evidence Act.
ALSO READ: Delhi Lawyers’ Strike: Coordination Committee to Decide Fate by 8 PM Today
Court’s Observations
The High Court found several serious flaws in the prosecution’s case:
- Place of Occurrence Not Proved: Neither the informant (P.W.1) nor the police official (P.W.2) provided any description of the place where the alleged offence took place.
- Unreliable Breath Analyser Test: Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra (1971), the Court reiterated that the smell of alcohol, unsteady gait, or incoherent speech are not conclusive proof of consumption. Alcohol consumption can only be confirmed by blood or urine tests.
- Electronic Evidence Deficiency: Citing Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020), the Court stressed that under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, electronic evidence like a breath analyser report must be accompanied by proper certification. Here, the investigating officer admitted he had no specialised training to operate the device.
- Informant and IO Being the Same Person: The Court criticised the practice of the informant also acting as the investigating officer, referring to Megha Singh v. State of Haryana (1996) and Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018), which underline the need for independence and impartiality in investigation.
- Contradictions in Witness Testimony: Witness statements were inconsistent, especially regarding the presence of other persons at the scene, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
Court’s Conclusion
The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to multiple procedural lapses and evidentiary shortcomings.
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court were set aside. Since the appellant was already on bail, he was discharged from his bail bonds.
Appearances:
Appellant: Mr. Ankesh Bibhu, Amicus Curiae
Respondent: Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, APP
Case Title:
Manoj Murmu @ Manoj Murmur v. State of Bihar
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.848 of 2023
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Patna High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES