INTOXICATION

MADE BY SUBMITTED
TO
PIYUSH PAL(04013403818) MR. JASDEEP AHUJA
SMRIDHI BABBAR(0513403818)

IDEAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol is quite strongly associated with crimes of violence. The

effect of alcohol on the brain is depressant from the beginning.
Intoxication presents problems in theory of responsibility. A man
who commits a crime under the influernce of alcohol may have
otherwise led a normal and responsible life.
Convicting a person who commits a crime under the influence of
alcohol like all other offenders may appear to be harsh.
It may not be in the interest of the general society to treat
intoxication as a general defence.
Sec 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
things which intoxicated him was administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will.[ Indian Penal Code, 1860]
A man in order to claim exemption from criminal liability under Section 85,
IPC 1860 on the ground of involuntary drunkenness must establish that he
was (i) incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or (ii) that he was doing
what was either wrong or contrary to law, and (iii) that the thing which
intoxicated him was given to him without his knowledge or against his will.
INDEX

1.Scope
2.Onus to prove intoxication
3.Mistake while drunk
4.Implications of section 85
5.Intoxication- proving of.
6.Rape case- Defence of intoxication
7.State of Intoxication
SCOPE OF SEC 85
Section 85 applies only in cases of involuntary intoxication (drunkenness). Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the
commission of the crime.[ Prabhunath v. State, AIR 1957 AII 667 (DB)]
Where the accused could not show that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of the commission of the offence,
the benefit of Section 85 was not given.[ Sohan Manjhi v. State, AIR 1970 Pat 303 : 170 Cri Lj 1245 (DB)]
Consequently, where the intoxication is administered to the accused by stratagem or fraud of another, as when mixed
with his food or drink and given to him in confidence he is excused. [ Jethuram v. State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 at p.
243]Where the accused consumed liquor, quarreled with his wife and thereafter poured kerosene on her and set fire, it
was held that the benefit under section 85 was not available.[Venkappa, K. Chowdari v. State of Karnataka, 1996 Cri LJ 15
(Kant) (DB) ] On this view if friends or relatives persuade a person to drink a little more than he can reasonably digest, he
cannot complain that he was made to drink a little more than he can reasonably digest, he cannot complain that he was
made to drink against his will.[ Jethuram v State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 at p. 243, 244 (DB)] Where an accused takes
liquor to alleviate pain, it is not a case of involuntary drunkenness and the accused is not protected by Section 85.
[ Jethuram v State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 (DB)]
Drunkenness may in extreme cases result in delirium, tremors or insanity- whether temporary or permanent and if it is
does so, the offender will be held not guilty.[Samman Singh v. Emperor,AIR 1941 lah 454 (DB)]
Unless drunkenness either amounts to unsoundness of mind so as to enable insanity to be pleaded by way of defence, or
the degree of drunkenness is such as to establish incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the
crime, drunkenness is neither a defence nor a palliation.[ Wariam Singh v. Crown AIR 1926 Lah 428 : 27 Cri Lj 764] Where
the evidence was lacking to show accuser’s incapacity to form requisite intention, the accused was held guilty under
Section 302 and not under Section 304, Part II. [ Basdeo v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 : Cri Lj 919] Where the
accused caused death in state of voluntary intoxication he was held liable under Section 302 and not under Section 304.
Part II.[ Ramsingh v.State of Gujarat (1985) 1 Guj LR 40] Where the accused consumed liquor scolded his wife, set fire to
her, and when she extinguished the fire, set fire to her again resulting in her death, the offence fell under section 302 and
not under Section 304, Part-II.[ M.S.Satyanarayana v. State of A.P., 1995 Cri Lj 686 (AP) (DB)]
Voluntary drunkenness is no defence under Section 85,m but it may be taken into consideration while awarding
punishment.[ Samman Singh v. Emperor,AIR 1941 lah 454 (DB)] Where the abnormal behavior of the deceased was due to
excessive drunkenness, the protection under Section 85 held not available.[ Deba Dip v. State, 1994 Cri LJ NOC 154 (Ori)]
MISTAKE WHILE DRUNK

The taking of drink could not itself be excuse of commission

of a crime and it was not a defence that a man’s mind was
so affected by drink that he more readily gave way to
passion or that he would not have acted as he did had he
been sober nor will drunkenness be defence in case of
strict liability, since if an honest and reasonable mistake by
sober person cannot afford a defence, a mistake while
drunk cannot do so.
IMPLICATION OF SEC 85

Merely because the accused claimed to be drunk at the

relevant point of time could never be taken an excuse for
his brutual and diabolic acts and the plea of drunkenness
did not in any way dilute not because of what is provided in
section 85, IPC but because one after the another five were
taken and that too of four young children.
STATE OF INTOXICATION
• There are of course many varying degrees of drunkenness which culminate in a state in which the person
becomes incapable of knowing the nature of any act. The word “state of intoxication” in Section 86 can
only mean intoxication which renders a person incapable of knowing the nature of the act in question or
that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law when he commits. It would be extremely dangerous
to extend the protection under Section 86, Penal Code to persons who commit serious offence under the
influence of liquor in varying stages and differentiate culpability in their favour as opposed to similar
offence by perfectly sober persons.- In re : Balaswami, AIR 1953 Mad 827. Voluntary drunkenness is no
excuse for the commission of offence.
• Drunkenness makes no difference in the knowledge with which a man is charged and a man
knew what the natural consequences of his acts where it must be presumed to have intended to
have caused them. Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the question of knowledge
possessed by an accused person at the time he commits the offence and leaves quite open the
question of intention. There must be some material on the record to show that the accused was
under the influence of liquor at the time he commited the offence. So, no question of
drunkenness arises.[ Sohan Manhi v. State, AIR 1970 Pat 303: 1970 Cr Lj 245]. It must be
proved that the accused was so much intoxicated at the time of the incident that he was beside
his mind altogether for the time being, otherwise he would not get the benefit of Section 85 and
Section 86.
SEC 86

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
SCOPE
Section 86 is an exception to Section 85. Section 86 does not permit intoxication of a lesser degree.[ State of
Maharashtra v. Ashok, 1987 Cri LJ 1416 (Bom.)(DB)]
But so far as intent or intention is concerned, the same must be gathered from the attending general circumstances of
the case paying due regards to the degree of intoxication. Was the man besides his mind altogether for the time being?
If so it would not be possible to fix him with the requisite intention. But if he had not gone so deep in drinking, and
from the facts it could be found that he knew what he was about to do, the court can apply the rule that a man is
presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts.[ Basdeo v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 : Cri Lj 919]
Self- induced intoxication in a case of man slaughter is no defence.[ Manmath v. State of Orissa, 1989 (10)Crimes 17
(Ori)] Where the accused in drunken state caused fracture of skull bone by striking stick on the head of the deceased
resulting in death, accused intended to cause such injury as was likely to cause death, was held guilty under section 304,
Part I, though charge under 302 had not been framed against the accused.[ Padika Janu v. State of Orissa, 1989 Cri Lj
NOC 104 (Ori)]
The onus of establishing the plea under Section 86 lies on the accused.[ Dasa Kandhu v. State, 1976 Cut LT 499]
Where the accused was heavily drunk and was incapable of forming the requisite intent which could bring his act
within the ambit of Section 302, in view of the provisions of Section 86, the accused could be imputed with the
knowledge of his act.
It is clear that 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.
Basdev v. State of Pepsu

A retired military officer was charged with the murder of a young boy of 15 or 16. Both of them and
others of the same village attended a marriage party. All of them went to the house of the bride to
attend the mid-day meal. Some had settled down in their seats and some had not. A military who was
very drunk and intoxicated, asked the young boy to step aside a little so that he may occupy a
convenient seat. But, when he did not move, the military officer whipped out a pistol and shot him in the
abdomen. The injury proved fatal. The evidence showed that the accused sometimes staggered and
sometimes was incoherent in his talk. But it was shown that he was capable of moving himself
independently and was capable of talking coherently as well. The evidence proved that he came on his
own to the house of the bride and that he made the choice of his own seat after injuring the deceased,
he attempted to get away and was secured a short distance from the scene. When he was secured, he
realized what he had done and asked for forgiveness. All these facts, according to the SC, go to prove
that there was no proved incapacity on the accused to form the intention to cause bodily harm sufficient
in the ordinary course of the nature to cause death. In view of his failure tom prove such incapacity, the
law presumed that he intended the natural and probable consequences of his act. In other words, he
intended to inflict bodily injuries on the deceased and the bodily injuries so intended to be inflicted, was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused was found guilty of murder.
Mavari Surya Sathya Narayan v. State of AP

The accused and the deceased were married for 11 years. He was an
alcoholic and quarreled often with her. One day he came home drunk
and asked her to sign on some blank papers. When she refused, he
pulled her by her hair and dragged her into the room and attempted to
set fire on her. The deceased put out the flames and tried to run away.
The accused again pulled her, poured kerosene and set fire to her. The
deceased died of the burns. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying on
the SC decision in Basdev v. State of Pepsu, held that having regard to
the facts, it couldn’t be said that the accused was in total loss of mental
power and hence the provisions of s.85 will not apply.