Thiruvananthapuram: Legal experts are of the view that refusal to undergo a blood test after a vehicle accident is akin to admitting to alcohol consumption.
Section 204(2) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act says that if the person having been required, whether at the hospital or elsewhere, to provide a specimen for a blood test, has refused, omitted or failed to do so, a police officer has reasonable cause to suspect him of having alcohol in his blood.
A clause in Article 20 (3) of the Constitution says that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. However, it applies only in case of forcing a person to provide a statement against himself before a court of law. One cannot refuse to give his body fluid as evidence using this clause because there was a subtle difference between giving and taking.
Section 203 (2) of the same Act says: If a motor vehicle is involved in an accident in a public place and a police officer in uniform has any reasonable cause to suspect that the person who was driving had alcohol in his blood or under the influence of a drug referred to in Section 185, he may require to provide a specimen to test.
Section 203 (4) says if a person, required by a police officer under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test, refuses or fails to do so and the police officer has reasonable cause to suspect him of having alcohol in his blood, the police officer may arrest him without warrant except while he is at a hospital as an indoor patient.
Section 203 (5) says a person arrested under this section shall, while at a police station, be allowed to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test there.
