'Prima Facie No Evidence For Drunken Driving': Kerala IAS Officer Gets Bail In Accident Death Case[Read Order]

Sriram Venkatraman, IAS Officer, accused of rash driving which resulted in a death of a journalist has been granted bail by the First Class Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram.

The accident had occurred near Museum junction in Kerala's capital city. K M Basheer, a journalist, had died on the spot.

Judicial Magistrate of first class of the Thiruvananthapuram District Court held that in order to substantiate a case of causing death by drunken driving under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that the alcohol content in the accused person's body exceeded 30mg/100ml blood.

The Prosecution's case was that the accused was driving in an intoxicated state when he hit the vehicle of a man from behind, resulting into his death. It was alleged that the medical certificate issued after examination of the accused stated positive results for alcohol smell. Hence, since the accused had knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death of a person, it was a clear cut case of 304 IPC along with 185 MV Act.

The accused however contended that he was not under the state of intoxication and moreover no breath analyser test was conducted on him to establish the same. He also argued that mere consumption of liquor was not sufficient to make a case of intoxication.

The judge, Aneesa A., agreed with the arguments raised by the accused and held that in order to attract the offence of Section 185 MV Act, it must be established that the accused was under the influence of alcohol to such an extent so as to incapacitate him from exercising proper control over the vehicle.

In the light of judgment of Kerela High Court in Sagimon alias Prakash v. State of Kerela, 2014 (3) KHC586, it was held that the mere medical examination report alleging presence of smell of alcohol is not sufficient and only when alcohol content exceeding 30mg/100ml blood is detected by a breath analyser, can a person be prosecuted under the said provision.

Thereby, it was held that the accused could not have had knowledge that his actions will result into a person's death and a case under Section 304 IPC was not made. Consequently, the charges under the said provisions were dropped and the proceedings shall be continued under Section 304A IPC, for rash driving. On these grounds, the accused was also granted bail

Petitioner/Accused was represented by Advocate V. S. Bhasurendran Nair and the Respondent by APP