THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: In the courtroom, the prosecution turned weaker and weaker. The defence side always remained dominant by clearly pointing out the lapses committed by the police and highlighting Sriram Venkataraman’s successful record as an IAS officer. The counsel appearing for Sriram also produced the judgment copies of landmark verdicts by the Supreme Court and High Court in similar cases.
He also said if a person driving a car has a blood alcohol content level of 30mg per 100ml of blood, he or she can be booked under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, which consists of imprisonment up to six months or fine of D2,000, or both. But in this case, the officers could not find any traces of alcohol, hence the charges do not stand against the officer. However, the prosecution kept repeating that Sriram was drunk and it is unbecoming of an officer who is working in higher ranks to violate the law. But the prosecution could not substantiate the statements by producing evidence.
The defendant’s argument of police apathy in using breathalyser, soon after the accident became a blow for the prosecution. While hearing arguments, the court also demanded the blood sample result and case diary, but the prosecution could not file it and this too became a huge embarrassment.
Meanwhile, complainant Saifudeen Haji filed a petition in court requesting Sriram to be subjected to a Dopamine test to detect presence of drugs in his blood. The complainant suspects Sriram may have consumed narcotic substances.