Conviction U/S 304AA IPC Cannot Stand When Blood Alcohol Level Is Below Statutory Limit U/S 185 MV Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Court held that the definition of intoxicated driving must remain consistent under both statutes, observing that the legislature cannot be presumed to create two conflicting standards of intoxication.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a driver convicted of causing a fatal road accident, who challenged the finding of intoxication on the basis that the blood alcohol concentration recorded in his sample was 21.68 mg%, which did not constitute an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act.

A Single Bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kainthla, after examining the chemical analysis report and the legislative framework, held: “It is difficult to believe that the legislature would have penalised a person having less than 30 mg % alcohol in his blood under Section 304AA of the IPC but exonerated him under Section 185 of the MV Act. The legislature is not presumed to contradict itself by enacting laws which conflict with each other. Therefore, it is impermissible to hold that a person having less than 30 mg% alcohol can be punished under Section 304-AA of the IPC”.

Advocate Karan Kapoor represented the appellant, while Jitender Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General, represented the respondent.

Background

The prosecution's case was that a truck driven by the appellant fell into a gorge, resulting in the death of a person travelling with him. The police collected the appellant’s blood sample, and the laboratory report recorded an alcohol concentration of 21.68 mg%. The chargesheet alleged offences relating to rash and negligent driving and driving in a state of intoxication.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 279 and 304AA IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction under Section 304AA on the ground that the recorded alcohol level was below the statutory limit and did not amount to intoxication under the law.

Court’s Observation

The Himachal Pradesh High Court first examined Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, noting that the legislature has fixed the threshold of intoxication at 30 mg% alcohol per 100 ml of blood. Since the appellant’s reading was 21.68 mg%, the Court held that he could not be considered to have been driving under the influence as defined by the statute.

The Court observed that Section 304AA addresses driving “in a state of intoxication,” and that the meaning of intoxication must be guided by the statutory standard already enacted under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Bench concluded that the Trial Court erred by treating a sub-threshold reading as proof of intoxication.

The Court then considered whether negligence was otherwise established. It noted that the accident involved the vehicle falling into a deep gorge and that the mechanical inspection showed no defect in the vehicle. The appellant admitted that he was driving the vehicle. From the surrounding circumstances, the Bench held that negligence was made out under Section 304A IPC.

Referring to Syed Akbar versus State of Karnataka, 1980, the Bench stated that the principle of res ipsa locutor can be applied to the present case, explaining that generally “the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused rests on the prosecution”, however, “where the facts of the accident are such that the accident could not have been caused except for the negligence of the accused, the principle of res ipsa loquitor can be applied”.

The Court clarified that the absence of intoxication did not absolve the accused of liability for negligent driving. It held that the Trial Court’s conviction under Section 304AA required correction, stating that “these facts would constitute the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC”.

Conclusion

The High Court set aside the conviction under Section 304AA IPC and substituted it with a conviction under Section 304A IPC. The sentence was modified accordingly, and the appeal was partly allowed.

Ending Section

Cause Title: Dilbagh Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:37656)
Appearances

Appellant: Karan Kapoor, Advocate

Respondent: Jitender Kumar Sharma, Additional Advocate General

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment