Breathalyzer test enough to prove drunk driving, says court

CHENNAI: A week’s delay by the forensic laboratory (due to Covid lockdown) in testing for alcohol content in the blood sample of a city businessman involved in a hit-and-run accident supposedly led to the ‘vaporization’ of alcohol from the blood.

However, the results of the breathalyzer test taken within hours of the accident by the City Police was enough to convict the businessman, who, in an inebriated state drove his car which ran down the bike of a KMC lab technician in 2021.

H Abdul Khaiyum of Kilpauk was sentenced to five years imprisonment and slapped with a fine of Rs 20,000 by a city court. “It is not necessary that both breath test and laboratory test have to be done to prove drunkenness, “ Sessions Judge T H Mohammed Farooq observed citing the Motor Vehicle act, when the results of the blood test showed no alcohol content.

On May 21, 2021, Abdul’s car hit a two-wheeler driven by Yamuna, an ECG technician at Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital (KMCH). The accident happened near EVR Periyar Highway- Barnaby Road junction and Abdul fled the scene without stopping, before the vehicle was chased and stopped by the public, according to the prosecution. The prosecution also pointed out that the businessman had driven the vehicle in violation of lockdown restrictions.

Yamuna succumbed to her injuries later in the day. City Police meanwhile had conducted breathalyzer test on the offending driver, which showed the level of alcohol to be 130 mg per 100 ml of blood (above 30 mg per 100 ml blood is considered punishable by law).

While the driver was produced on the same day at Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital (RGGGH) for the collection of blood samples and the samples were sent to the forensic lab in Mylapore the same day, due to Covid-19 lockdown, the lab was closed and when it opened a week later on May 28 and the tests conducted, the toxicology report stated that there was no alcohol content in the blood.

The prosecution cited Dr Rajesh of RGGGH as telling the investigators that the blood samples when not preserved properly in the frezeer box there is a possibility of the alcohol contained in the blood getting vaporized.

During the trial, while the accused did not deny the involvement of him or his car in the accident leading to the death of the woman, he argued that the woman came in the wrong direction resulting in the accident.

With the toxicology report stating no trace of alcohol in the blood, the counsel for the accused argued that it is more reliable than breathalyzer test and also refuted the contentions of the eyewitness testimonies to prove the drunkenness of his client.

“During Covid-19 pandemic there was Government guidelines to use hand sanitizers that would smell of alcohol. Therefore, it is contended that the oral evidence of the witnesses cannot be relied upon to prove the drunkenness, “ the counsel argued and also questioned the veracity of the breathalyzer report as the police official concerned could not state whether the machine was properly calibrated.

However, citing the MV act, the court noted that it is enough if the prosecution proves drunkenness with either breathalyzer test or blood test and also held that the arguments of the accused’s counsel are not sustainable.

“The contention that use of hand sanitizer would have emitted smell of alcohol though probable, in the light of the other material and breath test it could not be appreciated and comprehended, “ the court noted.

During the pending of trial, the accused had voluntarily paid Rs 5 lakh to the family of the victim. “The legal heirs of the deceased would also be entitled to seek suitable compensation under the MV act too, “ the court noted.