Alcohol Consumption Can Only Be Ascertained By Blood Or Urine Tests; Breath Analyser Test Alone Not Sufficient: Patna High Court

Setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to multiple evidentiary lapses and procedural deficiencies

Justice Alok Kumar Pandey noted that, as previously settled by the Supreme Court, “no conclusion with regard to consumption of alcohol by a person can be made merely because the breath smells of alcohol, or the gait is unsteady, or the speech incoherent. Consumption of alcohol can only be ascertained by way of blood or urine tests.”

Advocate Ankesh Bibhu, Amicus Curiae, appeared for the appellant, while Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, APP, represented the respondent state.

Background

The case arose from allegations that the appellant was found in a drunken state based on a breath analyser test conducted by the investigating officer. Acting on the report, a case was registered under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. After investigation, the appellant was charged and convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment.

Challenging the conviction, the appellant contended that the breath analyser test was unreliable, no medical examination had been conducted, and the investigating officer had neither identified the exact place of occurrence nor followed proper procedures.

It was also highlighted that the same officer acted as both the informant and the investigating officer, raising serious concerns about the fairness of the investigation

Court’s Observations

The Court found several discrepancies in the prosecution's case, which collectively undermined its credibility. It noted that the place of occurrence was neither properly established nor marked during investigation, and that the statements of the witnesses were inconsistent.

It further observed that although multiple persons were present at the location, the investigating officer failed to explain why they were neither examined nor tested during the proceedings.

On the evidentiary value of the breath analyser, the Court, while relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani v. State of Maharashtra, held that such tests alone are insufficient unless corroborated by urine or blood samples. “In the absence of any material to show that medical tests were conducted, it is unfathomable to reach a definite conclusion regarding the allegation of alcohol consumption,” the Court observed.

The Court also referred to Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal to highlight that, under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, electronic evidence, such as breathalyser reports, must be accompanied by proper certification from an authorised and trained person. In this case, the investigating officer admitted having no specialised training in operating the device, which further weakened the prosecution’s case

Additionally, the Court criticised the practice of the informant doubling as the investigating officer, citing Megha Singh v. State of Haryana and Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, which stress that a fair investigation requires independence and impartiality. The failure to maintain these standards, the Court held, compromised the integrity of the proceedings

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, discharging the appellant from his bail bonds.

Cause Titile: Manoj Murmu @ Manoj Murmur v. State of Bihar

Appearances

Appellant: Mr. Ankesh Bibhu, Amicus Curiae

Respondent: Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, APP

Click here to read/download Judgment