INTRODUCTION

Intoxication refers to a state in which a person's physical or mental

control is diminished by the effects of alcohol or drugs. Legally,
alcohol intoxication is often defined as a blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) greater than 5.4-17.4 mmol/L (25-80 mg/dl or 0.025-0.08%)
Since criminal intention is foundation of all the criminal
responsibilities, it follows that a person who is drunk is in the same
predicament as a person temporarily insane. Indeed, such a state has
been termed as dementia offectata – a form of lunacy in which the
functions of the mind are temporarily suspended. But since no man
can be permitted to wear cloak of immunity by getting drunk, this
rule justly not accepts the cases of voluntary drunkenness
INTOXICATION IN IPC
There are two provisions in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 85
and Section 86 both provisions deal with intoxication as an
extenuating factor. When we read both the provisions collectively we
get that the former provision deals with involuntary intoxication or
intoxication against one’s will, while the latter deals with the liability
of a voluntarily intoxicated person committing the offense under the
effect of self-administered intoxication.
85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication
caused against his will.— Nothing is an offence which is done by a
person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication,
incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is
either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which
intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or
against his will.
Section 85 provides a complete defense if the person was incapable
of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong/illegal due to
involuntary intoxication (administered without their knowledge or
against their will)
It is to be noted that Involuntary intoxication excludes mens rea. In
case of Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Beard , 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.
86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by
one who is intoxicated.— In cases where an act done is not an
offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person
who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt
with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had
not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was
administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Section 86 deals with voluntary intoxication, where the person is still
liable as if they had the same knowledge as if they were not
intoxicated, unless the intoxicating substance was administered
without their knowledge or against their will.
Both 85 and 86 come under the general exceptions of the IPC
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:
 That he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act at the
time of committing such an act;
 That he was unaware of the fact that such an act was illegal or
against the law;
 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:
 A person does an act in a state of intoxication;
 That act must be an offense;
 It will be presumed that the accused knows;
 Unless it is proved that he was intoxicated involuntarily.

Basudev v. State of Pepsu

Basudev v State of pepsu is a landmark case on the defence of
intoxication that laid down guidelines for intoxication.
A retired military officer was charged with the murder of a 15-16-
year-old boy at a marriage party. The officer, drunk and intoxicated,
shot the boy in the abdomen, causing fatal injuries. The accused,
who was sometimes staggered and incoherent, was found capable of
moving independently and talking coherently. He arrived at the
bride's house on his own, made his own seat, and attempted to
escape. After being secured, he realized his actions and asked for
forgiveness. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused had no
proven incapacity to cause bodily harm sufficient to cause death, and
the law presumed that he intended the natural and probable
consequences of his act. The accused was found guilty of murder.
In the case of Basdev vs State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488, the
Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines:
 The absence of the nature of the act and its consequence is a
defense against the crime charged by the accused.
 The fact of drunkenness of the accused should be taken into
consideration with other circumstances or proven facts to
 determine whether the accused has the malafide intention or
not.
 The fact that the accused has become incapable of forming an
intention necessary to constitute a crime and may commit
violent acts as a result of such drunkenness, does not negate
the reality that a man naturally intends the consequences of his
actions.
Foreseeability test
It is true that when a person takes alcohol he starts losing control
over his actions. There is a certain limit after which a man fully loses
control over his mind or actions. If a person stops before reaching
that point then we can say that the person has not fully lost his
control. This test is used to find out whether the accused had crossed
such limit during the commission of the crime or not. This test
applies only to voluntary intoxication, whereas in involuntary
intoxication, intention and knowledge of the person is not a relevant
factor to decide the guilt of the accused.
The foreseeability test checks all the actions of an intoxicated person
collectively to see whether he crossed the limit after which a man
loses self-control and cannot foresee the consequences of his acts.
For example, if an intoxicated person just after the commission of
murder tries to hide in a bush, it shows that even if he was under the
influence of liquor but he has not lost his consciousness to judge
whether he is doing a wrongful act or not.
BURDEN OF PROOF
If the accused wants to avail protection under Section 85 of the
Indian Penal Code 1860, he is required to prove that the intoxication
was not voluntary or against his will, and because of intoxication he
lost the capacity to distinguish between what is wrong and what is
right or understand the nature of his act. Both the above said
questions have to be proved by the accused to claim protection
under Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Similarly, the burden of proof on the voluntarily intoxicated person is

to prove that the intoxication made him incapable to form the
specific intent to constitute the crime. To prove his plea, he must
show that he was in such a degree of intoxication that he was
incapable of forming the necessary intent to commit a crime, held in
Dasa Kandha vs State of Orissa, 1976 Cr LJ 2010 (Ori).
LAW IN THE UK ON THE DEFENCE OF INTOXICATION. IN
COMPARISON WITH THE INDIAN LAW
 The first categorical difference is that in case of British law, the
defence of intoxication is not codified under any specific
section, while under the Indian law it has been clearly codified
in sections eighty-five and eighty-six of the Indian Penal Code.
 In Indian law, the clause that the drug has to be administered
against the will of the individual is given much more importance
than it is under the British law. Also, the dichotomy between
specific intent and basic intent is given a lot of importance in
case of British law. The severity of the punishment an individual
can be given is reduced due to this. In Indian law as well this
exception is applicable, as well as an exception in case the
individual’s mind is diseased. This portion of our law is very
similar to the British law; as a matter of fact the cases that have
been cited as authority are also British.
 The second factor that can be considered in the case is that in
the Indian criminal law, the difference has been made very clear
between the intention and knowledge of an individual. Even in
British law, the specific intent and the basic intent dichotomy
has been elaborated, but they have not given an exclusive
difference between the knowledge and intent.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the defense of intoxication is an important aspect of
criminal law that highlights the complexities of human behavior and
responsibility. While the law seeks to hold individuals accountable for
their actions, it also recognizes that certain circumstances, such as
involuntary intoxication, may mitigate culpability. As such, the
defense of intoxication serves as a reminder of the need for a
nuanced and balanced approach to criminal justice, one that
considers the complexities of human behavior and the principles of
fairness and justice.