Drunk driver like 'dead unconscious' man behind wheels: Delhi court
A Delhi court has upheld the jail term of a man convicted of drink-driving, saying he was like a "dead unconscious" man behind the wheels who posed "mortal danger not only to himself but also to all other persons using the road".Updated: Jul 10, 2015 13:41 IST
A Delhi court has upheld the jail term of a man convicted of drink-driving, saying he was like a "dead unconscious" man behind the wheels who posed "mortal danger not only to himself but also to all other persons using the road".
Additional sessions judge Amit Bansal, while dismissing the appeal of Nikhil Shankar, a resident of Karol Bagh, against the two-day jail term awarded to him by a trial court, said: "He was a menace to the public at large".
"The quantum of alcohol content in blood of the convict was very high i.e. 17 times of permissible limit. He, in these circumstances, could be stated to be almost a dead unconscious man behind the wheels who posed a mortal danger not only to himself but also to all other persons using the road.
"He was thus a menace to the public at large. Such type of conduct of appellant/convict must be strongly deprecated and cannot be condoned under any circumstance," the judge said.
The court refused to show leniency towards Shankar and said that the fact that he was heavily drunk is itself aggravating circumstance which does not warrant any leniency from court.
"Keeping in view the circumstances in which the present offence was committed, the convict is not entitled to be released on probation of good conduct and thus his plea in this regard is declined," it said, adding that the trial court had already been lenient by awarding only a two-day jail term.
The court's decision came on the plea of Shankar, who was found driving a car in a drunken condition with alcohol content of 524.1 mg per 100 ml blood, which was more than the permissible limit of 30 mg per 100 ml blood.
In its May 11 order, the magisterial court had, besides jailing him, imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 and had impounded his driving licence for a year. Shankar had challenged only the sentence.
In his appeal, he had argued that the trial court had passed a very harsh sentence after convicting him under section 185 (drunken driving) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Shankar, who works as a sales executive in a garment shop, had sought leniency from the sessions court, saying he was a first-time offender and has a two-year-old daughter to look after.