Act Done by A Person Under Intoxication MT

Introduction
Individual defenses under criminal law have always been subject to much critical
attention, however a clear distinction can be made by understanding the appropriate meaning
and interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Individual defenses find
their existence under Chapter IV of the Act1 which deals with ‘General Exceptions’, one such
exception is ‘Act of an intoxicated person’.
Sections 85 and 86 relate to intoxication vis-à-vis drunkenness, the word drunkenness or
intoxication is not defined under IPC and does not only restrict its meaning to consumption of
alcohol but also includes other intoxicants such as drugs and other psychotropics substances
as well.2 Section 85 of the Act lucidly states that voluntary intoxication is no excuse for a
committed offence, on the other hand involuntary intoxication, that is stupefaction done by a
third party, is a complete defense.
“Section 85 exonerates a person from liability for a criminal act done while he is in a state
of intoxication, if by the reason of intoxication the person was:
i. Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
ii. Doing an act which was either wrong or contrary to law.”3
Absence of Knowledge: Explained

Incapability of knowing the nature of the act implies that the impugned act has been
caused by the absence of mens rea which means that the person committing the offence had
no idea regarding the consequences of his act and his judgement was therefore clouded by his
mental inability to think and process the situation in which he was involved, however the
cause of such intoxication must be “without the knowledge of the person” and the act must be
performed “against his will” and not voluntarily.
It is to be noted that section 85 enables a person to be excused from the punishment of
an offence designated under the Indian Penal Code,1860 and is not a ‘right’ conferred upon
the accused, hence the burden of proof lies on the accused to prove his innocence in a court
of law and if the submissions are found to be unconvincing to a judge or the act executed by
him is established to be done as a result of voluntary intoxication he may well be prosecuted
in a similar nature as a person in sobriety.4
1
The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2
Jagdev Singh v. State of Himanchal Pradesh, (2015) SCC OnLine HP 2520.
3
BM Gandhi, Indian Penal Code (4th ed. K.A Pandey, 2017).
4
Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488.
‘Presumption of knowledge’ has been dealt under section 86 of the IPC which limits
the ambit of section 85 and puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the accused to prove
his innocence in a court of law regarding his intention during the commission of the act and if
the intoxication is proven to be voluntary the exemptions given under section 85 would
ultimately fail to apply.5
Thus, there lies a presumption of knowledge that the person was aware about the
result of the offence unless the contrary has been proven, for example if a person A shoots B
with a gun which results in death of B, regardless of A’s knowledge about the act, he will be
presumed to have knowledge of the consequence of the act, though he had no knowledge of
such an offence.
Delirium Tremens and its relationship with M’Naghten Rule

A person who excessively and regularly consumes alcohol, which can classify him as
an alcoholic and a habitual drunkard, can if proven be given the defense under section 85
because a frequent alcohol abuse has been medically proven to impair decision and reason
making faculties.
If the cognitive and decision making power of a person is impaired then he won’t
remain capable of making wise decisions, hence he can plead the defence of M’Naghten rule
which falls under the ambit of section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which was laid
down by House of Lords in the famous M’Naghten case6.
The rule laid down the test of insanity, where Lord Tindal CJ observed the following:
“In all cases of this kind the jurors ought to be told that every man is presumed to be sane,
and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the
contrary be proven to their satisfaction: and that to establish a defence on the ground of
insanity, it must be clearly proven that at the time of committing the act the party accused
was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the
nature and quality of the act he was doing, or as not to know that what he was doing was
wrong.”
The abovementioned reasoning given by Lord Tindal is exhaustive and covers all the
aspects of a person’s state of mind, hence it is self-satisfactory that if a person is unstable that
is when his state of mind is impaired and questionable then he cannot be prosecuted for the
offence that he has committed as the intention or the mens rea ,in such cases, is absent.
5
Director of Public Prosecution v. Beard, 1920 AC 479 (HL).
6
(1843) 10 Cl & F 200: 8 ER 718.
The most important aspect of the M’Naghten rule is that “No person can be acquitted
for unsoundness of mind, not willfully caused by himself, he was unconscious and incapable
of knowing, in doing the act, that he was doing an act forbidden by the law of the land.”
Test of Foreseeability
This test has been laid down to examine the culpability of a person for the
commission of an offence A person while consuming intoxicants loses control over his body
in a given period of time (which differs from person to person) when the substances are
taken, such action indicates that the person want to lose control over his senses and his body.
Such actions are voluntarily performed and the person doing the act is well aware and
capable enough to understand and foresee the consequences of such act, if he had been
responsible enough then he had the option to stop or control the quantity of intake of such
substances, this indirectly implies consent of a person, which makes him liable in case an
offence is committed.
The guilt can also be established by considering actions of the accused after the
commission of the offence, in case a person runs away after committing an offence and in
turn pleads the defence of intoxication in front of a court of law then this defence is likely to
be denied by the presiding judge as there exists a presumption of guilt of a person which
establishes his intention and knowledge of the act committed by him, though it remains on
the discretion of the judge to decide such cases which sometimes causes uncertainty and
confusion.
Analysis of the Provisions

Sections 85 and 86 provides defense for people under intoxication, however it is not a
watertight defense as discussed in the above paragraphs. If a blanket protection is provided to
the accused then it would prove to be lethal for the victim as it would enable offenders to
walk scot free without any penal consequences.
In order to secure the wellbeing of the victim and for the collective benefit of the society the
courts have time and again given various judicial pronouncements in order to uphold the rule
of law and to punish the guilty mind simultaneously exempting those who are mentally
incapable in carrying out an offence.
In case of Shrikant Anandrao Bhonsale7, a police constable hit his wife on the head
with a stone which resulted in her death, during trial it was proven before the court that the
7
Shrikant Anandrao Bhonsale v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 748.
accused suffered was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and hence was mentally unsound
at the time of commission of the offence, hence he was pronounced not guilty by the court.
Also in the famous Basdev case8, the accused shot dead a person when he refused to
vacate a seat for him to have dinner, the accused later took the defense of intoxication but it
was not accepted by the court as his plea was not in consonance with the commission of his
offence, based on the testimony of the witnesses it was established that the accused was well
aware of the act which he was performing and knew that the same would lead to death of the
person whom he shot, Basdev was found guilty as his intoxication was neither against his will
nor it was involuntary as a result of which he was charged for murder and was imprisoned in
accordance with law.
The English law also seems to be consistent with the judgements delivered by the
Indian courts, in case of Director of Public Prosecution v. Beard9 the House of Lords
concluded that voluntary intoxication is no defence to a criminal act. A person who
voluntarily consumes alcohol must be responsible enough to understand that his act can lead
to circumstances by which life and liberty of others can be largely affected and can be
detrimental for the welfare of the society.
The social status and educational background in certain cases also affects the sentence
given by the court, one such case was Alam v. State of Bihar10 the accused beheaded her
mother out of rage as he felt that his mother was responsible for his deteriorating relationship
with his wife, he took his mother’s head to a local police station admitting to the commission
of the offence and was found guilty of murder, but the court put into account that he was an
illiterate farmer and such act was a result of outburst of emotions, hence considering the
mitigating circumstances his death sentence was botched down to life imprisonment.
Conclusion
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides relief to the accused in certain circumstances
which includes defense against act committed under intoxication, however it does not provide
the accused with the get out of jail free card, the accused has to prove his innocence and lack
of intent beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law.
If the court is not convinced with the pleadings of the accused he can be punished for
the act that he allegedly commit, also it is to be observed that mere absence of motive or the
8
Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488.
9
1920 AC 479 (HL).
10
(2012) 2 SCC 728.
case where motive is not discovered or the defendant fails to prove his state of mind, he
wouldn’t be exempted from the penal proceedings.
These provisions under criminal law have faced continuous criticism and is often said
to be unfair and discriminatory for the victim, but law treats everyone as equals, according to
the principles of natural law, a thousand guilty minds can be set free, but not one innocent
person must be punished.
Critiques however have time and again contested that the person who commits an
offence under intoxication have a deep desire and want to commit a criminal act, hence any
person regardless of his state of mind must never be exempted or be provided with an
opportunity to nullify his offence, but in order to follow the due process of law and to upheld
the concept of justice, equity and good conscience, every person should be treated
accordingly.
The liberty given under section 85 is curtailed by the restriction imposed under
section 86 which balances the wheel of justice for both the accused as well as the victim,
conversely the discretion provided in the hands of a judge to decide upon the fate of a person
is seemingly arbitrary and has lost its shape with the passage of time, the presence of modern
techniques and advancement of medical jurisprudence must not be shadowed, in order to
keep the law in line with the modern times, thus providing a better justice delivery to the
parties affected and involved.

Act Done by A Person Under Intoxication MT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Act Done by A Person Under Intoxication MT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Act Done by A Person Under Intoxication MT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction

Absence of Knowledge: Explained

Delirium Tremens and its relationship with M’Naghten Rule

Analysis of the Provisions

You might also like