N IRMA U NIVERSITY I NSTITUTE

OF

L AW

III Semester B.com.LL.B. (Hons.)Course
A Report on a brief doctrinal project study carried out On the topic of

“ Scope of Intoxication under Section 85 and 86”
In the Course of CRIM INAL LAW I
A s a p a r t o f c o n t i n u o u s e v a l ua t i o n s c h e me

Su b m i t te d B y : C h i ra g Ja i n 1 1 B B L0 4 0

Su b m i t te d T o : S i r Ra nj i th T ho m a s

DECLARATION

I do hereby declare that this Project work entitled „Scope of

Intoxication under Section 85 and 86‟ has been prepared
by me as a partial fulfillment of the requirement of Bcom.LL.B. (Hons.). I also declare that I have acknowledged the sources/ authorities in my Project work accordingly.

___________________
Date:Name & Signature of Student

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project entitled: “Scope of Intoxication under Section 85 and 86” under has been carried out by Mr. Chirag Jain under my supervision and guidance. The project is made of his own efforts which are completed after careful research and analysis of the research material available in previous works and various judicial pronouncements. The project is of the standard expected of a candidate for project submission in the course of Criminal Law of III semester of B.com. L.LB. (Hons.) Programme and commend that it be sent for evaluation.

____________________

Date:

Name & Signature of Course Coordinator

INDEX

CHAPTER -1
1 .1 1 .2 1 .3 1 .4 1 .5

I N T RO D UC TI ON I ntro d u c ti o n to t he T o p i c Re v i e w o f Li te ra tu re H yp o the s i s O b j e c t i v e o f t he Stu d y Re s e a rc h M e tho d o l o g y

CHATPTER -2 CHAPTER -3 CHAPTER 4 CHAPTER -5

The British Perspective
I ndian Pe rspe ctive Case Laws CONCLUSI ON BI BLI OGRAPHY

CHAPTER-1: INTRODUCTION

The topic that I have selected falls under the category of defenses. In certain instances due to circumstances or other reasons that are beyond an individual‟s control he indulges in criminal behavior. This also forms an integral part of the law because as it is imperative to punish the guilty, not even a single innocent man must be convicted. The defenses have been specially formulated so that they are able to meet every circumstance. Though a defense does not rescue an individual from liability totally, it does reduce the severity of his punishment for he can be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder. Intoxication is one such defense. I will start with dealing with the origin of the concept, meaning the legal stand on the issue as it has been. As the basic doctrine has been laid down in the British cases, I will deal with the British aspect first. The project will be divided in two sections, one that will deal with the British perspective and the other that will deal with the Indian perspective. Intoxication is codified in section 85 and 86 of the Indian penal code.

What is drunkenness?
Drunkenness is a consequence of drinking intoxicating liquors to such an extent as to alter the normal condition of an individual and significantly reduce his capacity for rational action and conduct. It can be asserted as a defense in civil and criminal actions in which the state of mind of the defendant is an essential element to be established in order to obtain legal relief.

HYPOTHESIS:
Involuntary intoxication can act as a defense under Indian Penal Code but in cases of Voluntary intoxication mens rea is also taken into consideration.

OBJECTIVES:
  To do a Complete overall study on Section 85 & Section 86. To study various landmark cases held in Supreme Court of India and house of lords

Research Methodology
The quality and value of research depends upon the proper and particular methodology adopted for the completion of research work. Looking at the vastness of the research topic - historical, doctrinal legal research methodology has been adopted. To make an authenticated study of the research topic “Scope of Intoxication under Section 85 and 86” enormous amount of study material is required. The relevant information and data necessary for its completion has been gathered from secondary sources available in the books, journals, periodicals, research articles and proceedings of the seminars, websites. Keeping in view the need of present research, various cases filed in the Supreme Court as well as in the High Court’s on the issue of and the judgments therein have also been used as a source of information. The judgments pronounced in the cases have been analyzed in detail and used as a means of diagnosis to know the basic lacunae arising in the way of providing the remedy in case of Review of Judgment.

CHAPTER-2: The British Perspective
Voluntary Intoxication
Even though voluntary intoxication means that someone has consumed intoxicating substances with their own free will, he may still have a defense to the offence with which he is charged. The intent in case of a crime is very important and even though a person maybe voluntarily intoxicated, the very fact that he is unable to form the required intent works in his favor. The severity of the punishment is reduced due to this defense; for instance, an individual will be punished for the crime of manslaughter rather than the more serious crime of murder. A crime requiring specific intent may be reduced to one requiring basic intent. An intoxicant does not have any separate „class‟ but it refers to any substance, which has an effect on the consciousness or the decision-making capacity of a person.

What amounts to a state of intoxication?
It was in DPP v Beard that the rule for what amounts to a state of intoxication was laid down. Lord Birkenhead: where a specific intent is a specific element in the offence, evidence of a state of drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration in order to determine whether he had in fact formed the necessary intent to constitute the particular crime. Where a specific intent is necessary, if a man is able to prove that he was so intoxicated that he was unable to form the intent, he cannot be convicted of that particular offence.

Basic Intent/ Specific Intent Dichotomy
The rule was laid down by lord Simon of Glaisdale. However he laid down a very complicated rule. To sum it up briefly and simply, the rule provides that some offences do not require a specific intent or motive. Even a basic intent of recklessness or negligence would be sufficient in some crimes. For instance, in case of manslaughter no specific intent is required. The laws in the early nineteenth century concerning intoxication were very stringent. In fact, according to a statement made by Earl of Birkenhead, voluntary intoxication was considered an

aggravation rather than a defence. If a person was consuming alcohol, knowing fully well that it would impair his ability to think clearly, then he will be situated in no better condition than a sober man in the judgment of his criminal conduct. Thankfully, the rule has been mercifully relaxed and a person‟s punishment, though cannot be eradicated completely, can be reduced in severity. Further illustrations can be provided with the help of case studies.

Nevertheless, voluntary drunkenness protects an individual in two cases:
There are some crimes which demand the explicit requirement of a specific intent. In such cases, when the accused has had so much to drink that he is unable to form the necessary intent, then he cannot be blamed for the commission of the crime. The punishment of the accused can be reduced due to this defence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We are all well aware of the effects of alcohol on the human mind. Since time immemorial, alcohol has been associated with crimes of the worst possible kind, and we are all familiar with the deranged state of an alcoholic. A case can be cited at this instance. In a case of wife burning, the accused had consumed alcohol, and after having a tiff with his wife, had set her on fire after pouring kerosene on her. She had resisted the flames, and had tried to run away, upon which he had grabbed her and set her aflame again. The way the law deals with any criminal situation depends on the facts of a particular case, and here the facts prove that the husband was not intoxicated enough to be unaware of what he was doing and the fact that he pulled the wife back and doused her with kerosene proves this. Hence in this case the accused was convicted for murder.15 In some instances the mind of the individual becomes diseased due to drinking, and the disease is to such an extent that he becomes incapable of taking responsibility for his own acts or even thinking clearly for that matter. The principle rests in the M‟Naughton rules that were relied upon in such a case. A common example of a mental state caused due to excessive drinking is „delirium tremens‟. If a man gets drunk due to the tricks or fraud of another person, he will be excused.

CHAPTER-3: The Indian Perspective

As is well known, the Indian Penal Code is the foundation for the criminal law in India, and Section 85 and 86 deal with intoxication. 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 things which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.1 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. SYNOPSIS 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

1

Indian Penal Code, 1860

1. Scope of Section 85
Section 85 applies only in cases of involuntary intoxication (drunkenness). Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of the crime.2 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.3 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.
4

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. 5 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.6 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. 7 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.8 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.9 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.
10

Where the accused caused death in state of voluntary intoxication he was held liable under Section 302 and not under Section 304. Part II.11 Where the accused consumed liquor scolded his
2 3

Prabhunath v. State, AIR 1957 AII 667 (DB) Sohan Manjhi v. State, AIR 1970 Pat 303 : 170 Cri Lj 1245 (DB) 4 Jethuram v. State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 at p. 243 5 Venkappa, K. Chowdari v. State of Karnataka, 1996 Cri LJ 15 (Kant) (DB) 6 Jethuram v State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 at p. 243, 244 (DB) 7 Jethuram v State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 (DB) 8 Samman Singh v. Emperor,AIR 1941 lah 454 (DB) 9 Wariam Singh v. Crown AIR 1926 Lah 428 : 27 Cri Lj 764 10 Basdeo v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 : Cri Lj 919 11 Ramsingh v.State of Gujarat (1985) 1 Guj LR 40

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.12 Voluntary drunkenness is no defence under Section 85,m but it may be taken into consideration while awarding punishment.13 Where the abnormal behavior of the deceased was due to excessive drunkenness, the protection under Section 85 held not available.14

2. Onus to prove Intoxication
The onus of proof about reason of intoxication due to which the accused had become incapable of having particular knowledge in forming the particular intention was on the accused. Basically there are three propositions as regards the scope and ambit of Section 85, IPC.15

3. 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.16

4. Implications of Section 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.17

12 13

M.S.Satyanarayana v. State of A.P., 1995 Cri Lj 686 (AP) (DB) Samman Singh v. Emperor,AIR 1941 lah 454 (DB) 14 Deba Dip v. State, 1994 Cri LJ NOC 154 (Ori) 15 Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) Crimes 62 (SC) 16 Shankar Jaisware v. State of West Bengal 2007 Cri Lj3271 (SC) 17 Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) Crimes 62 (SC)

5. Intoxication- Proving of
The normal presumption is that a man intends the normal consequences of his acts. In a case where the defence is of drinking it is for the accused to lead evidence to rebut such presumption by giving evidence of his drunkenness and proving the degree of his intoxication to show that his mind was so affected by drink that he was not in a position to form any intent essential to constitute the crime.18

6. Rape case- Defence of Intoxication
Where the evidence of the prosecutor corroborated by the evidence of her husband that the accused came all of a sudden under influence of liquor and grabbed her and raped her and there was no evidence that the accused was under intoxication and he was unable to know the nature of his act, the accused was not held entitled to the benefit of section 85 of IPC.19

7. State of Intoxication
What is the state of intoxication reffered to in Section 85 and Section 86 of the Penal Code? 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

18 19

Dasa Kandha v. The State 1976 Cr Lj 2010 Prem Singh v. State, 2007 Cri LJ (NOC) 245 (Uttranchal)

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.20. 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 86.21 SECTION 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.22 Synopsis 1. Scope 2. Requisite to claim benefit of Section 86 3. Benefit of Section 86- Ruled out.

Scope
Section 86 is an exception to Section 85. Section 86 does not permit intoxication of a lesser degree.23 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
20 21

Sohan Manhi v. State, AIR 1970 Pat 303: 1970 Cr Lj 245 Babu Sadashiv Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 1986 Cr Lj 739 (Bom). 22 Indian Penal Code, 1860 23 State of Maharashtra v. Ashok, 1987 Cri LJ 1416 (Bom.)(DB)

to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts.24 Self- induced intoxication in a case of man slaughter is no defence.25 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.26 The onus of establishing the plea under Section 86 lies on the accused.27 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.28 Where in case of rape, there was no evidence showing any signs of drunkenness or alcohol having been consumed by accused at the time of committing offence of rape, benefit of Section could not be extended to him. His defence plea was rejected and he was convicted for offence of rape under Section 376, IPC.29 There is no evidence available on the record as to quantum of alcohol consumed by the appellant except the observation of the witnesses that he was under the influence of liquor. No one stated that he not in senses and has lost self- control. It was held that it is in evidence that immediately after the incident he walked the distance to the house of a witness and concealed the weapon of offence and wearing apparels. It could not as such be said that there was no intention on the part of appellant and he was out of his senses on account of intoxication.30 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.31

24 25

Basdeo v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 : Cri Lj 919 Manmath v. State of Orissa, 1989 (10)Crimes 17 (Ori) 26 Padika Janu v. State of Orissa, 1989 Cri Lj NOC 104 (Ori) 27 Dasa Kandhu v. State, 1976 Cut LT 499 28 Entrique F. Rio v. State, 1975 Cri LJ 1337 (Goa) 29 Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of A.P., 1997 (2) Crimes 19 (AP)(DB) 30 Sheikh Falser v. State 2006 Cri Lj 1105 at p. 1107 (1107) 31 Shankar jaisware v. State of West Bengal, 2007 Cri LJ 3271 (SC)

Requisite to claim benefit of Section 86
The person claiming benefit under Section 86 has to prove that thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.32

Benefit of Section 86 – Ruled out.
In the instant case the husband under influence of liquor beating his wife and throwing burning lamp on her face and he himself taking liquor held not entitled to claim benefit under Section 86.33 There is always certain guilty knowledge or intention, which forms part of the definition of many offences; this section deals specially to find solutions for such cases. A person who is intoxicated is considered to have the same level of knowledge as a person who is sober. Cases have to be differently judged because some focus on the intent of the individual while others focus on the knowledge that the individual possesses. It must be borne in mind that though an intoxicated person is credited with the same knowledge as a similar sane person, this presumption cannot be made for his intent. Drunkenness does not make a very big difference to the knowledge with which a man is credited, and a very popular argument based on the above stated notion is that since a person will have knowledge of his deed, he also has the intention to commit it. However, this does not apply to a case where an individual is so drunk that he is unable to from the required intent. In case of R v Kingston, the case that I have already elucidated, the principle that we follow as well as was laid down that if an individual was able to form the required intent even though he was intoxicated, he will be convicted. So far as the question of knowledge is concerned, the court must adopt the same stand as given to a normal human being, but the question of intent adds complications. Thus, in a case where the accused slit the abdomen of his friend, he was excluded from liability due to section 86 of the Indian Penal Code, simply because he was not able to form the necessary intent.
32 33

Gautam Bhila Ahire v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 Cri LJ 4073 (Bom.) Gautam Bhila Ahire v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 Cri LJ 4073 (Bom.)

CHAPTER-4: CASE LAWS
Voluntary intoxication and crimes of basic intent
For crimes that require only basic intent, intoxication is no defence. The case law is affirmed in DPP v Majewski 34[1976]. The accused had taken barbiturates, amphetamines and alcohol and subsequently assaulted a publican and three policemen. He was convicted of assault and his following appeal was dismissed. The judgement from Majewski was that, if the offence charged is one of basic intent, the accused may be convicted of it if he was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of committing the offence, even though, because of intoxication, he did not have the mens rea normally required for the conviction of that offence, and despite the fact that he was in a state of automatism. Additionally, the House of Lords recognised in Majewski that, for a person charged with an offence of basic intent, the prosecution does not need to prove the mens rearequired for that offence and the accused can be convicted simply on proof that he committed the offence (the actus reus). This leads on to the complex concept of recklessness. Certain crimes, such as attempted murder, can only be committed intentionally; others may be committed recklessly. The distinction is important. A distinction must also exist between recklessness and negligence, so that the law can punish reckless wrongdoing, but, apart from certain crimes, it can exempt negligent wrongdoing from criminal liability. The type of recklessness recognised by the majority of the House of Lords is termed „Caldwelltype‟ recklessness following their Lordships‟ decision in R v Caldwell [1982]. An individual is Caldwell-type reckless with regard to a particular risk that attends his actions if the risk is obvious to an ordinary prudent person who has not given thought to the possibility of there being any such risk, or if the individual has recognised that there is some risk and has nevertheless persisted in his actions. The effect of the ruling in Majewski that proof of mens rea is not required when an accused who is voluntarily intoxicated is charged with an offence of basic intent is reduced when Caldwelltype recklessness suffices for that offence. In R v Caldwell, Lord Diplock took the view that
34

[1976] 2 AII ER 142 (HL)

classification of offences into those of basic or specific intent was irrelevant where Caldwelltype recklessness sufficed for mens rea. The distinction between such offences is important, however, if the intoxicated person who is charged with an offence of basic intent has thought about a possible risk and wrongly concluded it to be negligible. In this case, a loophole in Caldwell-type recklessness (termed „the lacuna‟) means that he could not be convicted of recklessness. Indeed, he would be acquitted unless convicted under the Majewski ruling on the basis that the actus reus of an offence of basic intent has been committed.

Basdev v. State of Pepsu35

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.

35

AIR 1956 SC 488

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.

Venkappa Kannappa Chowdhari v. State of Karnataka

The accused, quarrelsome by nature, was addicted to liquor. The son of the accused died in a motor accident. The accused wanted the compensation amount of 10000, which was in the name of the accused‟s wife. On the day of the decision, he came home drunk and asked his wife to withdraw the fixed deposit amount. When his wife refused to comply, he beat her, took a tin of kerosene oil, sprinkled it on her and set her on fire. His wife screamed and the neighbors took her to the hospital. A dying declaration was recorded. The accused took the plea of incapacity due to intoxication u/s 85 IPC. His plea was rejected because he had voluntarily consumed alcohol. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

CHAPTER-5: CONCLUSION
After much research on the topic, it can be said that intoxication is not a very strong defence, and even if it serves to mitigate the severity of a punishment, it cannot exculpate a person from liability. This is essential because absolute and cold logic cannot be applied to human affairs, as they require certain flexibility in their dealing. A common man will not have much regard for the law if a drunken man batters him, and the man gets away with his conduct merely because he was too intoxicated to think clearly. In India as well, the law that has been followed till date has its foundation in the British 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.

The English law has evolved over a series of cases and it has come a long way from the rigid law that it was earlier. In the early nineteenth century, alcohol would never have been able to serve as a defence. Rather it would have had a reverse effect and this shows us how much the law has progressed in this aspect over a period of time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES Indian Penal Code, 1860 SECONDARY SOURCES-BOOKS & ARTICLES Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, (New Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2002). P.S.A. Pillai, Criminal Law, (New Delhi: Butterworths, 2000). K.D.Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (New Delhi: Butterworths, 1999).

Articles
Ewan Paton, “Reformulating the Intoxication Rules: The Law Commission‟s Report”, [1995] Crim. L.R. 387. Graham Virgo, “The Law Commission Consultation Paper on Intoxication and Criminal Liability”, [1993] Crim. L.R. 420. Spencer, JR (1994) 'Involuntary Intoxication is a Defence' 53 Cambridge Law Journal Glanville Williams, “Involuntary intoxication”, (1989) 105 L.Q.R. 387.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful