Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra
Bench: Division Bench — 2 Judges (P. Sathasivam & B.S. Chauhan JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
Alister Pareira, a businessman, consumed alcohol at a party and drove his vehicle at high speed on a public road in Mumbai in the early hours of 12 November 2006. He drove onto the pavement and ran over seven persons sleeping on the footpath, killing six of them and grievously injuring one. He was tried for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC (knowledge that the act was likely to cause death) rather than Section 304A (rash and negligent act causing death). The Sessions Court convicted him under Section 304 Part II. The Bombay High Court modified the conviction to Section 304A. The Supreme Court was required to determine which offence applied to drunk driving resulting in death.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Does drunk driving at high speed on a public road — causing multiple deaths — constitute culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC (knowledge) or merely rash and negligent act under Section 304A?
- 2What is the correct legal distinction between Section 304A and Section 304 Part II IPC in the context of road accident deaths?
- 3What sentence is appropriate for a person who kills multiple sleeping persons on a footpath while drunk driving?
The Judgment
The Supreme Court restored the Sessions Court conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC — holding that drunk driving resulting in multiple deaths is not merely negligence under Section 304A but culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II (knowledge that death is the likely consequence). A person who drives while intoxicated is presumed to know that driving in such a state is likely to cause death — satisfying the knowledge element of Section 304 Part II. The Court sentenced him to three years' imprisonment (he had already served time in custody).
Key Principles Laid Down
DRUNK DRIVING = KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY DEATH (Section 304 Part II, not 304A): A person who voluntarily consumes alcohol to the point of intoxication and then drives a vehicle is presumed to have knowledge that such conduct is likely to cause death. This elevates the offence from Section 304A (rash/negligent act without knowledge) to Section 304 Part II (act done with knowledge that it is likely to cause death).
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTION 304A AND SECTION 304 PART II: Section 304A covers rash or negligent acts causing death where there is no intention to kill and no knowledge that death is the likely consequence — e.g., a momentary lapse of attention. Section 304 Part II applies where the accused had knowledge that the act was likely to cause death even without intending it — drunk driving squarely falls here.
RECKLESSNESS WITH KNOWLEDGE ≠ MERE NEGLIGENCE: Conscious risk-taking in circumstances where the accused knows death is likely is culpable homicide (Section 304 II), not mere negligence (304A). The key is the presence of knowledge at the time of the act.
BNS SECTION 106 — SPECIAL DRUNK DRIVING PROVISION: The BNS 2023 introduced Section 106(2) specifically for death caused by a person driving rashly or negligently while drunk or under influence of drugs — prescribing imprisonment up to 10 years and fine. This provision supersedes the Alister Pareira framework for post-BNS cases.
AGGRAVATED CULPABLE HOMICIDE SENTENCING: Courts must consider the multiple deaths, the vulnerability of the victims (sleeping on a footpath), the voluntary consumption of alcohol, and the high speed in deciding sentence under Section 304 Part II.
Impact on Indian Law
Alister Pareira established the foundational rule that drunk driving resulting in death is culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II — not merely rash driving under Section 304A. This distinction became critical in several subsequent high-profile road accident cases (Salman Khan hit-and-run case, Pune Porsche case 2024). The BNS 2023's Section 106(2) codified a specific drunk-driving-death offence with a 10-year maximum, reflecting the Alister Pareira principle. Courts now refer to both the Alister Pareira knowledge-test and Section 106(2) BNS when dealing with alcohol-related traffic fatalities.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is drunk driving causing death Section 304A or Section 304 Part II IPC?
Per Alister Pareira (2012), drunk driving causing death is Section 304 Part II IPC — culpable homicide not amounting to murder — not mere negligence under Section 304A. A person who voluntarily gets drunk and drives is presumed to know that death is a likely consequence, satisfying the knowledge requirement of Section 304 Part II. Under the BNS 2023, Section 106(2) now specifically covers this with a 10-year maximum sentence.
What is BNS Section 106(2) and how does it change drunk driving law?
BNS Section 106(2) is a new specific provision (no direct IPC equivalent) criminalising death caused by a person driving rashly or negligently while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The punishment is up to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine. It codifies the Alister Pareira principle in statute, making drunk-driving-death a more serious and clearly defined offence than general negligent homicide.
What is the difference between IPC Section 304A and Section 304 Part II?
Section 304A covers rash or negligent acts causing death without any intention or knowledge that death would result — e.g., a momentary lapse of attention while driving. Section 304 Part II covers acts done with knowledge that death is the likely consequence, but without intention to kill — e.g., drunk driving, firing a gun into a crowd, or discharging a firearm in a dangerous direction. The key distinction is knowledge: 304A has no knowledge element; 304 Part II requires knowledge of likely death.