9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Rash and negligent driving causing death and injuries. 2. Consumption of illicit liquor under the Bombay Prohibition Act. 3. Sufficiency of evidence for conviction. 4. Procedural irregularities in the trial. 5. Admissibility of the Chemical Examiner's report. 6. Application of Sections 66(2), 129A, and 129B of the Bombay Prohibition Act. 7. Validity of retrial ordered by the Sessions Judge. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rash and Negligent Driving Causing Death and Injuries The appellant was initially tried for rash and negligent driving under the influence of liquor, causing the death of Mohmad Yusuf and injuries to four other occupants. The Trial Magistrate acquitted the appellant of these charges due to insufficient evidence proving that the appellant was driving the vehicle at the time of the mishap. 2. Consumption of Illicit Liquor Under the Bombay Prohibition Act The Trial Magistrate found that the appellant had consumed illicit liquor, violating Section 66(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to three months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, with an additional two months of imprisonment in default of payment. 3. Sufficiency of Evidence for Conviction The evidence primarily relied upon by the prosecution was the report from the Chemical Examiner, which indicated an alcohol concentration of 0.069% in the appellant's blood. However, the prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of custody for the blood sample, raising doubts about the reliability of the evidence. 4. Procedural Irregularities in the Trial The Sessions Judge identified significant procedural irregularities, including the lack of examination of the special messenger who carried the blood sample and the absence of evidence about the storage conditions of the phial containing the blood specimen. These irregularities led to the conclusion that the trial was not "fair and full." 5. Admissibility of the Chemical Examiner's Report The appellant's counsel argued that the report of the Chemical Examiner was inadmissible because the blood sample was not collected and examined in accordance with Section 129A of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The Supreme Court clarified that while Sections 129A and 129B provide a specific procedure for collecting and examining blood samples, they do not exclude other methods of proving alcohol consumption. 6. Application of Sections 66(2), 129A, and 129B of the Bombay Prohibition Act Section 66(2) creates a presumption of illicit liquor consumption if the alcohol concentration in the blood exceeds 0.05%. Section 129A outlines the procedure for collecting and testing blood samples during an investigation, while Section 129B deals with the admissibility of certificates and reports from medical practitioners and Chemical Examiners. The Supreme Court held that evidence of alcohol concentration could be admitted even if the specific procedure under Section 129A was not followed, provided it was otherwise relevant and reliable. 7. Validity of Retrial Ordered by the Sessions Judge The Supreme Court noted that retrials should be ordered only in exceptional cases where the original trial suffers from serious illegalities or irregularities. The Sessions Judge's order for retrial was deemed inappropriate as the deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence could be addressed by allowing additional evidence under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court directed the Sessions Judge to hear the appeal and permit the prosecution to present additional evidence, ensuring a fair trial. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the order for retrial and directed the Sessions Judge to hear the appeal, allowing the prosecution to present additional evidence to address the identified deficiencies. The appellant was to be given an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence, ensuring a fair trial process. The appeal was dismissed subject to these modifications.
|
