Tyre Burst, No Breath Test: Uttarakhand HC Quashes Section 105 BNSS Charge Against Driver
Uttarakhand High Court set aside a culpable-homicide charge under Section 105 BNSS against a driver whose vehicle overturned after a tyre burst, finding no scientific proof of intoxication or rash driving.
Justice Alok Mahra of the Uttarakhand High Court, sitting singly, has partly allowed a criminal revision filed by Amar Singh, a jeep driver charged after a fatal road accident near Shani Temple, Bedubagar, on the Badrinath–Chamoli route. The Sessions Judge, Chamoli had on 11 December 2025 framed charges under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b), and 281 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2025. The High Court found that no sufficient material existed to frame the charge under Section 105 — which pertains to culpable homicide — and set it aside. The remaining three charges were left undisturbed, and the trial court was directed to proceed accordingly.
The Accident and the Case Before the Sessions Court
The incident arose while Amar Singh was driving a jeep from Shri Badrinath Ji towards Chamoli. Near Shani Temple, Bedubagar, the left front tyre of the vehicle suddenly burst, causing the jeep to overturn. Several passengers sustained injuries; one of them subsequently died.
During investigation, the vehicle was subjected to technical inspection. The inspection report recorded that the left front tyre had burst, while the remaining tyres were in proper condition. The brake pipe was also found to have burst. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of passengers and eyewitnesses under Section 180 BNSS. Those witnesses consistently stated that after the journey commenced from Badrinath, Amar Singh did not stop the vehicle, drove normally, was not under the influence of any intoxicant, and had consumed no liquor.
Amar Singh was medically examined at the Government Hospital after the accident. The medical report noted the smell of alcohol in his breath. However, no blood sample was collected to determine the actual alcohol concentration in his blood, and no breath analyser test was conducted.
On the basis of this material, the Sessions Judge, Chamoli framed charges under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b), and 281 BNSS. Amar Singh challenged the framing of the Section 105 charge by way of criminal revision before the High Court.
The Legal Issue: What Section 105 BNSS Requires, and What Section 185 MV Act Demands
Section 105 of the BNSS deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. For a charge under that provision to be framed, there must be prima facie material indicating that the accused caused death through an act done with the requisite knowledge or intent — in this factual context, rash or negligent driving or driving under intoxication.
The revisionist's counsel, Mr. Mukesh Singh Rawat, pointed to Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which sets the threshold for driving under the influence of alcohol at 30 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, as detected by a breath analyser or other prescribed test. The argument was straightforward: without a breath analyser reading or a blood test showing the prescribed concentration, the mere smell of alcohol noted in a medical report cannot, by itself, establish intoxication for the purpose of a criminal charge.
Counsel further pressed that the technical inspection report positively attributed the accident to the tyre burst, and that no eyewitness attributed any act of rashness or negligence to the driver. The submission was that the Sessions Judge had mechanically framed the charge under Section 105 without properly appreciating the investigative material.
How the High Court Reasoned
Justice Mahra examined the investigation material and accepted the revisionist's position. The court identified three distinct points on which the Section 105 charge was unsustainable.
First, the technical inspection report clearly indicated that the accident was caused by the bursting of the left front tyre. That finding pointed to a mechanical failure rather than any conduct on the part of the driver.
Second, the eyewitness statements recorded during investigation did not attribute rash or negligent driving to Amar Singh at any point during the journey, nor did they suggest he was under the influence of an intoxicant.
Third, and critically, the medical examination only noted the smell of alcohol in the breath. No blood sample was drawn, and no breath analyser test was performed. The court held that this fell short of the standard laid down under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires detection of alcohol concentration exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of blood through a breath analyser or other prescribed test. Without that scientific determination, the medical observation alone could not support an inference of intoxication.
Taken together, the court concluded that “there was no sufficient material before the trial Court to form a prima facie opinion” for framing a charge under Section 105 BNSS. The Sessions Judge's order of 11 December 2025 was therefore liable to be interfered with to that extent.
The court did not disturb the charges under Sections 125(a), 125(b), and 281 BNSS. Those charges — which relate to causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life and other allied offences — were not the subject of the revision and were allowed to remain.
Outcome
By order dated 8 July 2026, Justice Alok Mahra partly allowed Criminal Revision No. CRLR/25/2026. The charge framed against Amar Singh under Section 105 BNSS was set aside. The charges framed under Sections 125(a), 125(b), and 281 BNSS remain unaffected. The learned trial court — Sessions Judge, Chamoli — was directed to proceed with Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2025 in accordance with law on the surviving charges.