Intoxication

It is the general principle of criminal law to punish a criminal for committing

an offense, initially, it is required to prove that he has done a wrongful
act (actus reus) with a wrongful intention (mens rea). This principle is based
on the Latin maxim “actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which
means that merely a guilty act is not sufficient, it should be coupled with a
guilty mind to punish a person. It means that to punish a person it is
required to prove that he/she has committed a wrongful act with a wrongful
intention.

Intoxication is a condition in which a person's mental and physical state is demonic due to the
consumption of alcohol or a narcotic substance. It is commonly known as state of being
intoxicated. In this state of intoxication, the person is not able to understand whether what he or
she is doing is right or wrong and he is unable to understand consequences of his or her actions.
He is neither able to control his actions and he is not able to react in a particular way.

Legally, alcohol intoxication is often defined as a concentration of alcohol in the blood greater
than 5.4-17.4 mmol/L.A constant blood alcohol of more than 0.80% is a life threatening as well as
it can result in the death of a person.

The concept of intoxication under IPC:

Intoxication is covered by general exceptions, i.e. Chapter IV of the CPI. As a general rule, a
person is excluded from criminal liability for specific reasons such as intoxication, insanity,
consent, etc. The burden of proof rests with the accused to prove the point of exception.
Normally, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to convict the accused of a criminal
offence. But in this case, the accused must prove that the reason why he should be exempt from
criminal liability.

This is based on the concept that an innocent man should not be held responsible for an offence
that is guilty only if it is not proven. Section 85 and 86 deal with general exception of intoxication.

A. Section 85, Indian penal code:

'Act of a person who is unable to judge against his will for any reason of poisoning:
nothing is an offence committed by a person who, at the time of the offence, is the result
of poisoning, is unable to know the nature of the act, or who is doing the wrong thing or is
in breach of the law, provided that the that what intoxicated him was administered to him
without his knowledge or according to his will."

This section refers to offences in which the person is involuntarily intoxicated, which
means that the intoxicating substance is administered against his own will or has no
knowledge of the intoxicating substances. This suggests that the substance should be
forcibly administered to him, or he should either not know that the substance given to him
is intoxicating. The person should be intoxicated at the time of that act or before the
commission of such an offence.He should not be aware of the consequences of the such
an act that act he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.

Section 86, Indian Penal Code:

An offence that requires some intent or knowledge committed by someone who is drunk. In
cases where the act is a criminal offence, unless there is some knowledge or intent, a person
who is intoxicated may be treated as if he had the same knowledge as he would have ,if he
hadn't been intoxicated, unless the thing that intoxicated him was administered to him without
knowledge or against his will.

In the cases where the person is intoxicated but if act is done with a particular knowledge or
intention that he will be prosecuted for the same offence which he would have done without
intake of any intoxicating substance. In this case , both the knowledge and intention are taken as
an important factors. If the person is capable of understanding what he has done or he has
caused injury to other person knowingly or he is in his full senses & then, he will be prosecuted
for the offence as 'normal person'.

Foreseeability Test:
This test is laid down to see if a person can be held liable for an offence. A person loses control
over his actions as soon as he consumes an intoxicating substance. But when a person
voluntarily takes alcohol then this shows that he has been acting negligently and he wants to lose
the control. If he wanted to be in the control then he has the option to stop consumption if he
knows that the further consumption will lead to the loss of control & this evidently shows the
intention of a person. But this is not so in case of the involuntary intoxication, so it is taken into
account as a general defence under IPC.

A person will not be liable for an offence only when he is not understand the foreseeable events
that will lead him in the commission of the offence. If the intoxicated person has committed the
offence of murder & he tries to run away from that place as soon as the offence is committed
then only we can understand that person is able to walk properly & he foresees that he will be
held guilty of murder & he will be held liable for the offence of murder.

Involuntary intoxication:
Section 86 refers to both the knowledge and intent of a person who commits the act when the
accused is intoxicated. This section talks about the state of involuntary intoxication. The defence
of wilful intoxication cannot be taken in the commission of a crime. But there are two cases
where voluntary intoxication can be said to act at least as a mitigating factor. The first is a crime
where a specific intent is required.

If the accused has consumed alcohol a lot, he is not in a position to do the act, he will be
exempted from the offence. In the event that, if a particular person is not there and has
committed the act in the influence of alcohol, then the offence is not murder, but culpable
homicide that does not constitute murder. But under high intoxication also the person is able to
form the intention then he will be responsible for the murder.

Involuntary intoxication excludes mens rea:

In case of Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Beard [1], the accused raped & murdered a thirteen
year old girl & took the plea of intoxication. It was held by the hon'ble court that the intoxication
may only be a basis for defence ,only if the accused was not able to form the mens rea.It means
that involuntarily intoxication excludes the mental element i.e., mens rea.

The example in the case of:

Mavari Surya Satyanarayana vs state of Andhra Pradesh[2] :
In this case, the accused suspected that his wife had had an extramarital affair & he fought with
his wife. That day he consumed alcohol in a huge amount that he poured kerosene on his wife
and tried to set her on fire. In a way his wife escaped, but the accused grabbed her and poured
kerosene on her again and set her on fire. She died on the given these injuries and he defended
the intoxication. But the Supreme Court rejected his defence, stating that he had failed to burn
his wife and he was able enough to run behind her and catch her to perform her heinous act.

The Supreme Court found him guilty and converted his punishment sec.304 Part II i.e. the 10-
year sentence to sec. 302 death or life imprisonment. The second is that sometimes the
accused's mind is in a diseased state where the person is unable to take care of his actions and
even think anything Properly. M'Naughton's rules were invoked in this case, which states that the
a person's intention must be taken into account at the time of the Crime.

And this point is well explained in the case of:

DPP V. Beard [3]:
In this case, the accused was intoxicated and raped an underage girl. He placed his hand on the
girl's mouth and the other on her throat. As a result, the girl death by suffocation & he made a
plea that he was unable to understand the consequences of the act. But the court found him
guilty of the offence of murder under the Section 300 because this act of suffocation was different
from the act of rape and it intending to kill the girl.

So we can say that voluntary intoxication is a mitigation factor and, in some cases, this is an
aggravating factor. In cases where the person is heavily drunk and he will not be able to form an
intention for the commission of the act and then voluntary intoxication can be a mitigating factor.

A. But in most cases, it will be a aggravating factor because people will be encouraged to
commit a crime & escape punishment by taking plea of voluntary intoxication. In the case
of regular offenders voluntary intoxication is aggravating factor & also mean that
increased alcohol consumption and finally increase the crime rate.

B. Ingredients of section 86 of the Indian Penal code:

The ingredients of section 86 of the IPC are as follows:

o The Presence of the element of particular intention or knowledge

o It should be influenced by the use of an intoxicating substance
o The intoxicating substance must be administered without knowledge or against
his will.

This section deals with cases where knowledge and intent are important. An intoxicated
person has same level of knowledge as a sober person. Knowledge of person will not be
affected by intoxication & can be seen as a constant point in the case of a person's
intoxication.

The thing that will vary is the the person's intention. The facts of the case must be
presumed in order to determine a person's intention. Most of the time, the presumption is
taken when a person has knowledge, then he will obviously intend to do a particular act.
But the intention is a complicated factor & depends on different cases.

Ingredients of section 85 of the Indian penal code:

According to IPC Section 85, nothing is an offence that includes:

 There should be the presence of an act of the person

 The person must be unable to know the nature of the act
 Disability must be the result of a person's intoxication
 Intoxication must be administered without one's will or even without one's Knowledge
 Such incapacity should be there at the time of the act

Based on the ingredients , it can be seen that an offence or an act of should be

committed at a time ,when the effect of the intoxicating substance is there on the
accused. The accused should not have the knowledge or should be unaware of the fact
that the thing administered to him was an intoxicating substance or substance mixed with
an intoxicant. The defence of intoxication can only be taken when the person has no
intention of doing the act.

The proof of quantity and the circumstances of drunkenness must be taken into action
while holding the accused guilty of the crime. The nature of the crime & the harm caused
must also be taken into account. The force that was implicit, that is, the the extent of the
brutality committed by the accused at the time of the commission of the offence may also
be be considered an important factor.

Burden of proof:
This article is in i.p.c is covered in Part IV which are the general defenses to Offences.
The onus is on the accused & not on prosecution. It must prove that the intoxication was
by involuntary means & intoxicating substance was not consumed by his voluntarily. He
must also prove that he had not any knowledge or intention to do this particular act. The
facts and circumstances have also to be proved by the accused who led him to commit
such an offence.

Dutch courage rule:

This is based on the theory that people consume not only alcohol for pleasure, but also to
tackle depression & forget pain or pain and to escape this worldly pain and depression. In
this imagination, he imagines himself as overcoming these problems courageously. Thus,
people often also consume alcohol to develop courage. Drinking causes a feeling of self-
resistance and also takes away the ability to think this it does is illegal. The person before
drinking, i.e. voluntary intoxication, plans what he or she must do and also builds the
courage to do this thing. This rule is known as rule of courage. This rule governs only the
principle of voluntary intoxication. This shows that that a person intends & also earlier
plan to do the act.

 Basudev v state of pepsu[5]:

In this case, the accused, who is a retired military officer & the deceased attend a
wedding ceremony in the village & mid day meal was going on. Some have been sat in
the chair and some were sitting on the floor. The deceased who is a 13-year-old boy
years, sat in a chair. The accused came and asked this boy to get up from his place that
the boy refused. The accused, who was intoxicated, pulled a pistol out of his pocket &
shot the boy. The injuries were fatal and the boy died at the scene. In court, the accused
defended the influence of high intoxication and has not been able to understand the
circumstances his act. The court rejected his plea, stating that the accused himself house
and he was able to walk so that he would have had the ability to predict the
consequences of the act. The court found him guilty under section 300 of the IPC i.e. is
murder.

 ShankarJV. state of west Bengal[6]:

In this case, the defendant was under the effect of intoxication & he began to abuse the
victim. The victim asked accuded to leave. But he got angry & stabbed him seven times
which resulted in the death of the victim. Then he took the defense of intoxication. The
court responded to his plea that just because a person is drunk he cannot be excused
from the crime of murder.
 Venkappa v. state of Karnataka[7]:
In this case the accused's son died in an accident & there was a compensation of 1 lakhs
in the name of of accused's wife. The accused's wife refused to withdraw the money.
Then accused got angry & under the influence of intoxication burnt his wife. And she died
because of the injuries. Then the accused took the defence of intoxiocation. But his plea
was rejected by the court stating that intoxication was a voluntary intoxication.

Conclusion:
Indian Penal Code dealt with the subject of intoxication as part of general exceptions.
There are two sections dealing with the intoxication laws in India that include Section 85
and Section 86 of the IPC. The test has been set to see if a person is liable for the
violation or not, i.e. a pre-trial test. In the case of voluntary drunkenness knowledge factor
is taken the same as when he was not drunk. The Dutch Courage Rule is used to
describe the way the case will be handled.

The cases show the the fact that a person cannot be exempted from serious criminal
offences, even if the defence of intoxication is taken. The burden of proof lies with the
defendant before the commission of the offence. In some cases, intoxication can be both
as a mitigating aggregating factor. Recent developments also suggest that even if the
person involuntarily intoxicated the seriousness of the offence is very serious ,then he will
be held liable for the offence.

Essential ingredients of Section 85 and

Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
To claim exemption on the ground of Involuntary Intoxication under Section
85, the person has to prove the followings:

1. That he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act at the time
of committing such an act;
2. That he was unaware of the fact that such an act was illegal or
against the law;
3. That he was ignorant of the thing which intoxicated him or if he had
the knowledge, it was given against his will.
Section 86 says that if an intoxicated person does the following things then
it should be an offense:

1. A person does an act in a state of intoxication;

2. That act must be an offense;
3. It will be presumed that the accused knows;
4. Unless it is proved that he was intoxicated involuntarily.
The mens rea or guilty mind plays an important role while deciding whether a
person has committed an offense or not
 July 26, 2020
HomeStudents CornerCase Summary Bablu alias Mubarik Hussain vs State of Rajasthan

Bablu alias Mubarik Hussain vs State of

Rajasthan (SCI)
By E-Justice India Case Summary, Students Corner 0 Comments
Bablu alias Mubarik Hussain vs State of Rajasthan

PETITIONER:
Bablu @ Mubarik Hussain Appellant

RESPONDENT:
State of Rajasthan Respondent

Date of Judgment 12/12/2006

Author : Darshi Sanghvi

BENCH
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia

INTRODUCTION
The present case of Bablu alias Mubarik Hussain vs. State of Rajasthan seeks to determine the
circumstances in which drunkenness can be considered as a valid excuse in case of the offence
of murder and the circumstances in which a death sentence can be awarded.
FACTS
PW-1 Alladeen, through his written report, submitted that in the evening of 9.12.2005, the
accused Bablu hit his wife and children, who were rescued through his help. However, the next
morning around 5 am, his brother, the accused declared that he killed his wife Anisha, daughters
Gulfsha, Nisha, Anta, Munni and son Babu by strangulating them one after another.

The accused’s brother described him as a person of notorious character. The dead bodies were
lying on a mattress, each one’s thumb tied with a thread. A case was resultantly registered by the
police for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the evidence
led by the prosecution, like his declaration of the offence, his presence in the house and the
recovery of his wife’s earring from his possession, the Trial Court also found the accused guilty of
an offence under Section 302.

In the defence of the accused, it was stated that he was drunk and unaware of the consequences.
ISSUES AND FACTS OF LAW
 Whether the death sentence announced by Trial Court is correct.
 Whether drunkenness can be considered a relevant excuse in the present case.
JUDGEMENT
 In the present case, drunkenness cannot be considered as an excuse, considering the
brutality and insensitivity of the offence committed by the accused.
 In light of the aforementioned facts, it can be undoubtedly held that the acts of the accused
are diabolic in terms of conception and cruel with reference to execution.
 The facts prove that the present case is rightly considered to be the rarest of the rare, thus
deserving a death sentence. The appeal stands dismissed.
Judgement
The medical reports and the very fact that the plea of being drunk was not brought forth in the
Trial Court indicates the fact that this piece of argument is based on false pretext.

The Act of murdering 5 family members in cold blood, including his own children was completely
cruel and brutal, thus, falling into the rarest of rare circumstances. Therefore the death penalty
awarded is valid and is thus not set aside. “This case squarely falls under the rarest of rare
category to warrant death sentence”, said the Bench.

Suraj Jagannath Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra, Criminal

appeal no. 1885 of 2019 (supreme court jud

1384_2019_9_1502_19135_Judgement_13-Dec-2019.pdf (sci.gov.in)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1885 OF 2019

Suraj Jagannath Jadhav

.. Appellant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

.. Respondent
FACTS
 In this case, the appellant / accused Suraj Jagannath Jadav who was intoxicated
started abusing and assaulting his wife and poured kerosene on her body, who
was around 18 to 20 weeks pregnant.
 When she was trying to run out of the house to save herself and attempting to
open the latch of the door, the accused came from behind and threw lighted
match stick on her and set her ablaze.
 Suraj Jaganath Jadav was convicted of an offence punishable of section 302 of
IPC in the trial court due to which he filed an appeal in the High Court of
Bombay.
 According to the dying declaration of the deceased, she came out of the room in
the burnt condition and was making noise . After hearing her shouts, the accused
poured water on her body.
 The learned counsel on the behalf of the accused submitted that the accused
was under the influence of liquor and his act of pouring water on her wife
proved that there was no intention to kill her. He prayed that the accused
conviction should be altered from section 302 of IPC to section 304 part II of
IPC and the decision of the case Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 10 SCC
324 should be applied.
 On the other side, the learned counsel of the state submitted that the decision of
the case of Kalu Ram should not be taken it consideration, as in this case it was
found that the accused was in a highly inebriated condition, which is not the
case here. Here the accused poured kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze
which every prudent man would have the knowledge that this dangerous act
would result in severe injuries or death.
HELD:
 It was held that the intention of the accused to cause death was clear and the act
of pouring the water on the accused appeared to be an attempt hide this guilt and
seem innocent as he did it only when she came out of the room making noise.
  There was absence in proving that he was in a highly inebriated condition and
he lost all the senses. Inebriation can be defined as an act done by a person
where his power of thinking becomes blur and he is unaware of its
consequences. In this case, accused was in his complete senses and was very
well the consequences of his act.
 Thus the decision of the case of Kalu Ram will not be considered this present
case and the accused will be liable under section 302 of IPC

 Supreme Court Judgement

To test if the person was in intoxicated state will be determined by his ability to
understand the consequences of his act.

Introduction
It is the general principle of criminal law to punish a criminal for committing
an offense, initially, it is required to prove that he has done a wrongful
act (actus reus) with a wrongful intention (mens rea). This principle is based
on the Latin maxim “actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which
means that merely a guilty act is not sufficient, it should be coupled with a
guilty mind to punish a person. It means that to punish a person it is
required to prove that he/she has committed a wrongful act with a wrongful
intention. In the case of intoxication, the human brain loses its ability to
think as a reasonable man or to foresee the consequences of doing a
wrongful act. What will happen if someone under the influence of alcohol
pushes a person into a well and he dies, can such a person take the defense
of intoxication. Intoxication is dealt in under Chapter IV of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. After reading this article you will get answers to these
questions.

Intoxication is a state of mind where the brain and body of a human are
temporarily suspended from working as a result of the consumption of
alcohol or narcotic substances. In the state of intoxication, a person loses the
ability to understand whether he is doing the right act or wrong act and is
unable to understand the consequences of his acts. A person committing an
act under the effect of intoxication, may not do such a wrongful act if he
refrains from taking alcohol at the initial point. It will be harsh to punish a
person who committed a crime under the influence of alcohol or intoxication.
But at the same time, it may not be in the interest of society to treat all the
acts committed under the influence of alcohol as general defense and
immune the person from liability because sometimes persons consume
alcohol with proper knowledge and intend to commit a crime and in such a
situation, it shall not be treated as a defense.
Supreme Court of India
Paul vs The State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2020
Bench: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, K.M. Joseph

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.38 of 2020

PAUL
... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA
... RESPONDENT

In the case of Paul vs State of Kerala, (2020) 3 SCC 115, after a quarrel
between the deceased and her mother in law she left home to search for her
husband and found that he was consuming liquor with his friends, the
accused assaulted his wife in front of his friends and later on the same night
at 11:00 PM the accused throttled her to death. The accused claimed that he
was drunk heavily and had fallen asleep as soon as he reached home, the
next morning when woke up he found that his wife was hanging. The Apex
Court reiterated that, so far as the knowledge is a concern in the case of
voluntary intoxication, it is to be presumed in the same manner as there was
no drunkenness. The intention of the accused must be gathered from the
attending general circumstances of the case which has already been proved
before the court.

not a defence to criminal charge?

According to a recent article in The Hindu, the Supreme Court of India has ruled
that intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge 1. However, it can be considered as a
mitigating circumstance if the accused is not a habitual drinker 1. The defense of intoxication
is available in limited circumstances and depends on whether the intoxication was voluntary
or involuntary and what level of intent is required by the criminal charge 2. Involuntary
intoxication, caused by force, fraud, or unknowing ingestion, is recognized as a valid defense
to a crime in many jurisdictions 2. Voluntary intoxication is generally not a defense to the
commission of a crime, but evidence of temporary insanity caused by intoxication may be
introduced in mitigation of the penalty attached to the offense 2.
I hope this helps!

in Bablu v. State of Rajasthan [(2006)

This Court, in that case, rejected the plea of drunkenness after noticing that the crime
This Court, in that case, rejected the plea of drunkenness after noticing that the crime
committed was a brutal and diabolic act.committed was a brutal and diabolic act.

Voluntary is 86

Invlutary is 85