Intoxication

Theoretical overview

In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), certain acts that would otherwise be considered criminal offenses are exempted from criminal liability under certain circumstances. These are known as “General Exceptions” and are listed under Sections 76 to 106 of the IPC. These exceptions provide a legal defense to a person who commits an act that falls under these sections.  

The General Exceptions cover a wide range of acts, including acts done in self-defense, acts done in good faith for the benefit of a person, acts done in the course of duty, and acts done under compulsion or necessity. These exceptions are based on the principle that certain actions, which would normally be considered criminal, may be justified under specific circumstances.

Overall, the General Exceptions provide important legal protections to individuals who may find themselves in situations where they are forced to take actions that would otherwise be considered illegal.

Section 85 and 86 of the Indian penal code deals with intoxication. 

The drunk state of mind is termed as dementia offecatia- form of uncanny in which the function of mind is temporarily suspended.

One cannot wear a clock to immunity by drinking voluntarily, it should be involuntarily.

Ingredients of section 85 are

1. At the time of doing the act by reason of intoxication he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act and he must be doing either wrong or something contrary to the law
2. Thing which intoxicated must be administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

The drunkenness is involuntarily when a man is forced to drink or when he is made drunk through fraud of others or when any intoxicant is administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. The onus of proof lies on the accused to prove that he had no knowledge regarding the intoxication.

Person who claims intoxication under section 86 should prove the following-

1. incapable of knowing the nature of act
2. he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law 
3. he was intoxicated against his will or unknowingly  

This section (section 86) attributes to a drunken man the knowledge of a sober man when judging of his actions but does not attribute the same intention

Drunkenness is not an excuse for criminal misconduct: – 

1. Voluntarily drunkenness be considered aggravation rather than defence
2. Based on common view point that a person who himself voluntarily destroys his will power shall be no better situated in regard to criminal acts than a sober man.

The main difference between section 85 & 86 of IPC is that the former provides defence to involuntarily drunkenness and the latter to the voluntarily drunkenness only in certain circumstances.

Relevant sections

Section 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 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.

Important case laws

Bablu Alias Mubarak vs. State of Punjab – it was a murder case of wife and his three minor daughter and a son by the accused. It was found that there is no reason to accept the defence that their murders were committed by reason of accused being in state of intoxication and shouted after the act. The SC held that these murders were pre planned and of gruesome in nature. Therefore, the accused deserved no sympathy and the case clearly fell in the category of rarest of rarest cases.

Basdev vs. State of Pepsu – In this case there was a wedding party, the accused was in intoxicated state, asked a young boy to leave the seat for him to which the boy refused. The accused to out of pistol and shoot him dead, the injury proved fatal. After all evidence the supreme court held that there was no proved in capacity on the accused to form the intention to cause body harm sufficient in the ordinary cause of the nature to cause death in view of his failure to prove such in capacity, the law presume that he intended the natural consequences of act, hence he was convicted.

Important legal maxims and term

The drunk state of mind is termed as dementia offecatia- form of uncanny in which the function of mind is temporarily suspended.

Points to remember

• Section 85 and 86 of the Indian penal code deals with intoxication. 
• One cannot wear a clock to immunity by drinking voluntarily, it should be involuntarily.
• The drunkenness is involuntarily when a man is forced to drink or when he is made drunk through fraud of others or when any intoxicant is administered to him without his knowledge or against his will
• Section 86 attributes to a drunken man the knowledge of a sober man when judging of his actions but does not attribute the same intention
• The main difference between section 85 & 86 of IPC is that the former provides defence to involuntarily drunkenness and the latter to the voluntarily drunkenness only in certain circumstances.