Basdev VS The State of Pepsu

BASDEV VS THE STATE OF PEPSU
Bench: Justice N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar,J

Justice Narwarlal H Bhagwati,J
Petitioner: Basdev
Respondent: The State Of Pepsu
Citation: 1956 AIR 488
Issue: Whether the offence committed by the petitioner fell under section 302
of the IPC or section 304 of the IPC having regard to the provisions of section
86 of the Indian Penal Code?
Facts:
 The appellant Basdev, a retired military Jamadar, is charged with the
murder of 15-16 years old boy named Maghar Singh. Both of them were
attending. Both of them and others of the same village went to attend a
wedding in another village.
 The party that had assembled for the marriage at the bride's house seems
to have made itself very merry and much drinking was indulged in. The
appellant Jamadar boozed quite a lot and he became very drunk and
intoxicated.
 When everyone was settling down in their seats for a midday meal. The
appellant asked Maghar Singh, the young boy to step aside a little so that
he may occupy a convenient seat. But Maghar Singh did not move. The
appellant whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen. The
injury proved fatal.
 Basdev was charged with murder and the Sessions Judge noticed that he
was highly intoxicated so there was an absence of motive and
premeditation to kill. He was granted a lesser penalty of transportation for
life.
 An appeal to the PEPSU High Court at Patiala proved unsuccessful.
 After which a Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
Judgment:
 In section 86 of the IPC the first part speaks of intent or knowledge, the
latter part deals only with knowledge which raised a certain element of
doubt. So the court referred to various precedents of English Courts as to
whether the intent is also presumed to be present even when intoxicated.
 The court held that so far as knowledge is concerned, we must attribute to
the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober. But so
far as intent or intention is concerned, we must gather it from the
attending general circumstances of the case paying due regard to the
degree of intoxication.
 In the present case the court found that although the accused was under
the influence of drink, he was not so much under its influence that there
was incapacity in him to form the required intention as stated.
 This was proved from facts like the accused was capable of moving
himself and talking coherently. He walked by himself to the darwaza and
also decided for a chair to sit on. He after shooting the deceased tried to
escape and after realizing what he had done also asked for an apology. He
also did not require any support while he was at the police station.
 Although the accused was under the influence of drink, he was not so
much under its influence that his mind was so obscured by the drink that
there was incapacity in him to form the required intention as stated.
 So, the offence was not reduced from murder to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under the second part of section 304 of the Indian
Penal Code. The conviction and sentence were held right.
Relevant Paragraph:
The court referred to a judgment of House of Lord's decision in Director of
Public Prosecutions v. Beard [1887] 16 Cox C.C. 306 where a rule of law was
established as follows:
(1) That insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence
to the crime charged;
(2) That evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of
forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into
consideration with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not
he had this intent,
(3) That evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the
accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, and merely
establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave
way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends
the natural consequences of his acts.

Basdev VS The State of Pepsu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basdev VS The State of Pepsu

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Basdev VS The State of Pepsu

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BASDEV VS THE STATE OF PEPSU

Bench: Justice N. Chandrasekhara Aiyar,J

You might also like