Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Law of Intoxication (Ss. 85 and 86 IPC)
The term Intoxication means the person is incapable of doing things mentally as well as physically because of the consumption of alcohol or other narcotic substance. It is commonly known as a condition of addiction. In this drunken state, the person cannot understand whether what they are doing is right or wrong, and they cannot understand the consequences of their actions. He has no control over his actions or reacts in any particular way. The Indian Law on Intoxication (drunkenness) is contained in Sections 85 and 86 of the Act. It is voluntary intoxication having same effect as insanity which exempts the accused from the criminal liability and not voluntary drunkenness. Section 85 which deals with involuntary intoxication, affords the same protection as Section 84 affords to a person of unsound mind. A person voluntarily intoxicated will be deemed to have the same knowledge as the would have if he had not been intoxicated. he can only be punished on – The basis of knowledge of any particular intention. Involuntary drunkenness is the defence but voluntary drunkenness is no defence for the commission of a crime. Section 85 deals with offences committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol which is caused by fraud or coercion. Section 86 deals with intoxication which is self-induced.
Section 85 IPC:
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.
Ingredients of Section 85:
- At the time of committing the offence, the accused was intoxicated.
- Intoxication should be without his knowledge or against his will.
- Because of the intoxication, he was not capable of knowing the nature of the act at the time of committing the offence. Or
- Because of the intoxication, he was not capable of knowing that he was doing something either wrong or contrary to law at the time of committing the offence.
Notes:
- Section 85 can be called Law of Involuntary Intoxication.
- If the criminal was drunk against his will or without his knowledge then he can take a defence under section 85, that the criminal was intoxicated without his knowledge or with his will or consent, on the contrary, it must be shown that he was administered or given.
- Such a person could not know the nature of the act or what he was doing was wrong or illegal because of the sickness when the crime was committed: one person had the crime suppose you know or understand it when it’s done, it shouldn’t be done, or it’s against the law, and he’s still doing it. In this case, he cannot protect himself and will be held liable for the crime he committed.
- The disability must be the result of addiction to a person
Case Laws:
In Chet Ram v. State, 1971 CrLJ 1246 case, the Court held that voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of a crime.
In Bablu alias Mubarik Hussain V. State of Rajasthan, 12 December, 2006 case the Supreme Court examined Section 85 of IPC and held that evidence of drunkenness, the evidence which proves that the accused is incapable of forming the wrongful intent has also been considered along with the other facts, and then it should be proved of the accused person has the intention to commit crime. These sections do not protect someone who voluntarily consumed intoxicants as the person loses his mental ability because of his consensual act i.e., by self-induced intoxication.
In Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard,(1920) AC 479 case, the accused ravished a girl of 13 years of age and infurtherance of the act of rape, placed his hand upon her mouth and his thumb upon her throat, thereby causing death by suffocation. The sole defence was a plea of drunkenness. It was confined that drunkenness was no defence unless it could be set that the accused at the time of committing rape was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent to commit it inasmuch as the death resulted from a succession of acts, the rape and the act of violence causing suffocation, which could not be regarded independently of each other and that the accused was guilty of murder.
Section 86 of IPC:
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.
This section clarify something regarding presumption. There may be cases in which a particular knowledge is an ingredient, and there may be other cases in which a particular intent is an ingredient. In case of voluntary intoxication, Knowledge is to be presumed in the same manner as if there was no intoxication but there is no such presumption with regard to intention.
Notes:
- Section 86 can be called Law of Voluntary Intoxication.
- Section 86 includes the term mens rea (guilty mind) because in this section intention or knowledge is always there for committing any crime.
- If a person commits any crime or acts in the state of intoxication then that action must be an offence because it is presumed that the defendant knows about the crime unless the person proves that he was involuntarily drunk.
Case Laws:
In Jethu ram vs. state of MP, AIR 1960 MP 242 case, where accused drank liquor at the persuasion of his father to alleviate his pain, it cannot be said that administration of liquor to him was against his will and therefore, he could not claim any benefit under section 85. “Will” is the faculty of our mind which guides or controls our actions. So where the mind goes with the act, it can be said that a person had acted in accordance with his will.
In Basdev vs. State of Pepsu, 1956 SCR 363 case, where Basdev (retired military personnel) and a boy (aged 15 years) had gone to attend a wedding. At there, Basdev boozed quite a lot and he became very drunk and intoxicated. However, the evidence showed that although at times he staggered and was incoherent in his talk, he was still capable of moving himself independently and talking coherently as well. He asked the boy to step aside a little so that he may occupy a convenient seat. The boy refused. On that Basdev whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen which proved fatal. It was also in evidence that after shooting the boy, Basdev had made attempt to get away and when he was caught hold off by the witnesses, he had requested them to be forgiven. There was also no evidence that when he was taken to the police station, he had to be specially supported. Keeping all these facts in view, the court held that he was not so much under the influence of the drink that his mind was so obscured by the drink that there was incapacity to him to form the required intention. The court observed 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 attending circumstances of the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication.
The court laid down some important propositions with regard to the effect of voluntary intoxication on criminal liability:-
- The absence of understanding of the nature and consequence of an act, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to the crime charged.
- Drunkenness is ordinarily neither a defence nor an excuse for crime.
- If due to excessive drunkenness actual insanity supervenes, it furnishes a complete defence to a criminal charge.
- However, there may be cases falling short of insanity. In such cases and when the crime is such that the intention of the party committing it is one of its constituent elements, there should be evidence to show that he had become “incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime.”
- Where the evidence does not prove such incapacity and merely establishes that the mind of the accused was so affected by drink that he more readily gave way to some violent passion, that would not rebut the presumption that accused intended the natural consequences of his acts
In the present case, the accused had not gone so deep in drinking, and from the fact it could be found that he knew what he was about to do
Distinguishing Between Section 85 and Section 86 IPC:
| Section 85 IPC | Section 86 IPC |
| According to Section 85 of IPC, 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. | According to Section 86 of IPC, 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 85 covers involuntary intoxication | Section 86 covers voluntary intoxication. |
| If the person is intoxicated against his will, there shall be no liability as stated in section 85. | Under tis section a person is liable for the offences which require particular intent or knowledge, even if the person is intoxicated. |
| This section takes care of such offences and states that if intoxication is involuntary, neither knowledge nor intention in committing the offence will be presumed. | If it is voluntary then only knowledge of the offence on the part of the offender will be presumed but not intention in committing it. |
In State of Maharashtra v. Ashok Yashwant, 1987 CrLJ 1416 (Bom.) case, the Court held that the reading of sections 85 and 86 together makes it clear that section 86 is an exception to Section 85. The sections show that when the intoxication is instigated voluntarily, then done act is an offence even if the person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or the act was contrary to law or the act was wrong.This section obviously covers all offences.
Conclusion:
The Indian Law on Intoxication (drunkenness) is contained in Sections 85 and 86 of the Act. It is voluntary intoxication having same effect as insanity which exempts the accused from the criminal liability and not voluntary drunkenness. Section 85 which deals with involuntary intoxication, affords the same protection as Section 84 affords to a person of unsound mind. A person voluntarily intoxicated will be deemed to have the same knowledge as the would have if he had not been intoxicated. he can only be punished on