Smell of alcohol alone not enough to prove drunk driving, says Uttarakhand HC

Justice Alok Mahra of the Uttarakhand High Court has held that “subjective perception of the smell of alcohol on a driver is insufficient to sustain a charge of drunk driving”, observing that it merely indicates consumption and cannot establish intoxication. The court said “scientific evidence, such as a breathalyser or blood alcohol test, is necessary before a charge of culpable homicide can be framed”.

The ruling came while the court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Amar Singh, a resident of Chamoli. The court set aside the charge under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which deals with culpable homicide, but upheld charges under Sections 125(a) (causing hurt), 125(b) (causing grievous hurt) and 281 (rash or negligent driving). It directed the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously.

The case relates to an accident in Chamoli in which Singh's vehicle, travelling from Badrinath, overturned after a tyre burst, killing one passenger and injuring several others.


A sessions court in Chamoli had framed charges against Singh under multiple provisions of the BNS, including Section 105, on the allegation that he was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. However, after examining the evidence and the investigation, the High Court found the charge under Section 105 to be “unsustainable”.

The court relied on the technical inspection report and eyewitness accounts, which consistently indicated that there were no signs of intoxication and that Singh had been driving “steadily" throughout the journey.

The High Court also noted that although the medical report recorded the smell of alcohol, no breathalyser or blood alcohol test was conducted to scientifically establish intoxication. By contrast, the technical inspection report identified the tyre burst as the immediate cause of the accident.