LAW – GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

DEFENCE OF INFANCY
Off totally incapacitates which is the incapability of the child who distinguish from
right or wrong so it is there because because of the element of mens rea so if
you’re not able to distinguish between right and wrong if you’re not able to
understand that what I’m doing is going to cause harm your incapable of forming
that like requisite element Mens Rea are to commit a crime thus someone under
the age of seven years it’s going to the Doli incapax right incapable of
distinguishing between right and not in capable of you know creating that
certainly mens rea that is required to commit an offence a business computer to
be an absolute immunity however if a child is found to be engaging in an offense
um at the call of in adult right making good time however the adult liable for
using so then be labeled as effective think about sentence actually committed the
active actually committed by the child with the actors not committed by the childs
they cannot be guilty of your friends will be only guiltyThe nature of the accident
this subsequent conduct of the offender the big demeanor and appearance of the
offender in quote yes I’m ready basically please explain yeah so so and so think of
qualified immunity as opposed to absolute immunity right so here section 82 it is
absolute immunity this child is under seven years of age this is not something that
we will try to refute it is totally incapex it is understood that child because of the
age the ages the essential they will not go into the question of maturity the court
will not not go into the question of maturity because they say their under seven
years of age it is completely doli capax they’re incapable or forming intent right
so it is an absolute immunity 27 to 12 is considered a qualified immunity you have
to fulfill certain qualifications to get that immunity that qualification being if the
defendant is equal to show that this person did not have the maturity to
understand the consequences of the action OK so it is not an absolute immunity
but if you’re able to reach if you able to qualify as immature for under the
essentials of section 83 then there will be delete OK does that make sense yes Sir
OK so OK like I said the test of qualified immunity is based on natural fact and
subsequent conduct of the offender to needed an appearance of the offender in
the code by subsequent conduct we mean that this is done to understand
because think of it this is still a child Skype 12 years is a child so how we are trying
to assert and if this child knew what they were doing or new the consequences of
their actions again it's a matter of evidence but in evidence what is used as
evidence is 1 how what is their conduct in court right then they are examined
what is what are the statements that they’re given giving their show
understanding right of what after the after the act when their questioned by the
police right when the first action happens what is their conduct are they showing
understanding then after the act what they do do they try to call for help if they
have caused the death of another child person do they try to call for him to all the
understanding was what has happened are there showing regret remorse um
confusion guilt fear all of these are taken into account right so when the child has
been examined as an accused there's a lot of psychological evaluation that is
happening would have experts presenting in court will have maybe even teachers
presenting in court telling them what the conduct of the child is to a certain could
they have done this act knowing the consequences right so all of these
testimonies will be actually used to show if the child um had majority of
understanding OK uh let me try to give you some examples had an effect they um
there is a lot of discussion on that has soon not anymore it used to be a lot of
discussion with the parents indent right but that is not the key unless the parent
is again the attempt was affected OK Rebecca darling um no That’s it some
someone examples of this and illustrations of this good thing that for example if X
is an adult and this adults with instigating he said a child of six years of England
seven years’cause he’s dead right are you asking the child to do something that
you move to cause the death or the victim the child is not been able because he
installing capax but the adult would be legend for athe point of contention comes
in when it is section 83 weapons a child about the age of seven years and under
12 of in ritual understand OK um a lot of this and so I PC is dealing with under 12
and after that we do not talk about the age of children as being an exception to
immunol peacefully talk about under seven then under 7012 but a lot of his will
suddenly winning study evidence and criminal procedure searching right husband
lot of maintenance specially after the mid castle where the age of 16 to 18 was
love to be considered in italt where bold previous client face so for the longest
time often to 2013 we would not try a child a minor as an adult right and even
now we do not have a lot of presidents of it but after 2013 juvenile Justice Act
was amended in the truth so that those in the age group of 16 to 18 quote to pay
tried as an adult if they committed hina’s friends which takes me to previous
grants OK but for the purpose of IPC they only discuss 70 to 12 and also in 7 to 12
it is governed by the judges decide right procedurally with evidence and stuff it is
governed by the German justice can protectionist of the metal 2015 so now it's
actually prefer this nothing is an offense which is done by a child about seven
years of age and under 12 who has not attained sufficient maturity of
understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that
occasion OK I’ve actually already written the essentials here so that we’re not
going to ask you I should have not put it on the same slide but yeah they
ascensions are between 7 to 12 that is the each the child should not have attained
sufficient maturity of understanding who judged the nation consequences so
should not have a team sufficient maturity maturity or immaturity rather is an
essential and there is an incapacity ah at the time of the Commission of the ad
that is an into A and their Dali in kappad at the time of the commission or fee act
OK so there are two ways in which section 83of IPC looked at some say that it is
still considered only incapacitates distance keys of our versus and then double 2
um element of blue is the accused he’s a 10 year old boy is in Australian case OK
um and this case happened in 1998 there’s a 10 year old boy he’s been charged
with manslaughter or 6 year old Corey Davis right now what happens here is
when the stand if this child understood knew of the consequences of his actions
they called on a lot of experts so first and in the case so I you should read about it
a you'll be able to find the 1999 news article on wso2s.org and they also talk
about the misconduct of the police right but maybe the police was not did not do
a good job of asking questions of this giant yes money you can go ahead with the
case and ask OK alright um but Move that time right during those years um yeah I
don’t know if there is a set president of this is how the child add so there is
there’s maybe a lack of understanding of psychology and psychiatry which will
only get better overtime the more the judiciary engages with those fields that is
what I believe state but I I think there is only a procedural precedent in terms of
that yes we will have to because there is no other way of trying to understand
what the child’s maturity was at the time right except for asking them what they
thought and trying to judge if they’re lying or if they’re not lying God you know
are they scared right so yeah but but I completely understand where you were
coming from a man yeah a professional while I agree that there is a lack of
evidence based on like psychological grounds and it could be looked further like it
could be looked into more my guess would be that the child would basically be
sent to a juvenile detention center considering that they do have the tendency to
like he does have the the dependency to sort of get rough with people like you
said and he likes to play like by children younger than his age so it’s like putting
others at this if the child is not like you know like his actions are not sort of taken
into consideration and some sort of a solution is not found so that’s why I think
juvenile tension center was probably the case yeah so center of course when
you're held liable for crimes as well between under the age of 16 or 18 that is
weird your sin right so in this case he was held to be not liable he was held to be
not liable of manslaughter because they took into account the face the fact that
he has diminished intellectual capacities that his intellectual capacities are that off
a 7 year old or a six year old and two that because of that maybe he did not
understand the consequences of his actions and we agreed with the defense it
was merely an act of bullying that went wrong right and so For these reasons he
was tell to be not like so which is why I said that this was a the teachers with the
teachers were saying that he his because we're seeing him in class he does he
does not act like he does not study like he’s not up to the intellectual capacities of
a 10 year old and he is most comfortable with those who are younger than him
and the psychologist photos uh you know uh said that that was actually correct
right so all of these things were taken into consideration and as he was held to be
not liable OK yes Sir professor I apologize bake my audible yeah yeah yeah
professor so I was just reading this section 83 and center position under English
now and then it said that in England and common law country boy before but
below fortunately presumed innocent in any cases but we saw here in India that’s
not the case this from 7 to 12 there there should be substantial evidence of that
boy or the child is not mature enough so professor I just wanted to inquire if
there’s any if we know anything about the historic city of this particular provision
and in turn into IPC because it just seems very colored colonial to me that early
criminalization of you know people would be can be target of this provision when
in the in in common law countries where 14 till 14 year people are generally
considered incapable of committing and in your friends barring sexual offender
first but in India we have this low very low bar that’s on seven onwards person
can based on the evidence of majority to professor is do we know like if this this
had been amended after the British are like after the IT is not gonna be because
this is a particularly yes yes yes and and the British um you know Penal Code
substantive law has been amended later so the age was raised to tell afterwards
right so there are a lot of flaws in India which are British Witcher colonial IPC all of
it is colonial letter error low and a lot of the same laws have been amended or
discarded by the British but we continue to follow the same thank show thank
you OK alright so that is a oh man yeah you were saying something is professor I
highly go hypothetical situation in so basically what if there is a case where this
child to has no idea about what is right and what is wrong and obviously he’s
mensija cannot be proven but he sort of ends up going on say a killing spree and
kills about five people with no intention whatsoever and when it during the time
of investigation in his testimony the child just chooses to remain silent and so
then what would number one what would that silence like imply like what would
that be taken in like taken as in a psychological sort of an investigation and two
simply and the child is about so I should have mentioned this earlier but six years
and six months of age almost seven but not 70 so we still have that absolute
immunity but and they had no intention but I just like thought in such a scenario
wouldn’t it be very unfair if no one can be held liable go to crying and about five
people still lost their life something like that yeah um so I don’t think this is
happened in India and I and I think 7 years is too young age who talk about um I
can’t recall right now but there have been child serial killers ah across the world
right actually let me pull this one up OK as he just searched it there is an 8 year
old who is considered to be the youngest serial killer of the world emerging Cade
India’s infamous child psychopath and uh I’ll have to read up on this on the case
because I I haven’t read the case but I suggest you do as well and then we can talk
about it but what has happened in other countries is and because especially
America if America has had some situations with minors who have been serial
killers or if not have committed um at calling a killing spree right us please
different from serial killer and those situations although they would not be Dolly
incapaz because that is a very very young age America is just try people as adults
right there there not shy of trying minors as adults when it comes to previous
offenses so they have tried those such minors as adults right there was a 16 year
old girl who was a school shooter there are a lot of children in America who are
high school students shoot up there high school right so they’re technically
minors they it is a spree killing it is a mass killing they end up killing a lot of
students a lot of children and then they tried as an adult in India if it is a child
under the age of seven years it is psychologically also considered to be totally in
capax right so I know that we are saying that the public policy matter that we
considered considering someone under seven years Darlene capax but also
psychologically it is tall in kpax So what is happening maybe is that the child is
imitating right so in the case of this child who is 8 years old I think just like looking
through this uhm a apparently he has been seeing this around him right which is
something that you see with UM children who assault other children as well right
so there was when I was in law school I was a C all of this is a hypothetical right
but this is something that is seen to happen uh when I was in law school I was
interning with um a child home uhm and they were so they were not orphans but
so they had families but this was like a like a home school sort of format and this
family would foster these children and send them to a proper school as well right
so they would teach them at home and they would send them to proper school as
well their butts about 7 to 10 children there Egypt 7 to in living or such right and
there were three children from the cinefamily um one of them was taken back
home by the father then word there was a 7 year old boy or a 6 year old boy and
the middle sister who was about eight or nine years old right it was sort of known
um and these were like almost slum lake areas right um that the father used the
eldest daughter or the father would pimp out the eldest daughter right who is like
thirteen at this point at the point that I was volunteering with the organization
and uh it is very difficult in those situations i mean you can tell the police the
police will put the child another foster home and all of that happens but it also
puts the children who are in the care
DEFENCE OF INSANITY
Um? You don’t like most with chronic depression. Because of it, they were unable
to at the time of Commission of the Act, right? And that is it. When are you on
some of end sunlight? It doesn’t matter that you’ve been of unsound mind or
have had mental health issues like depression throughout your life. But does that
create a lack of clarity during the time of Commission of PR? Does the fact that
this person have depression make them? Oh, unable to know that what they are
doing is contrary to low or it is wrong, or the consequences of their actions
because. Depression in common understanding does not cause that. However, if.
That is, that is new studies and you’re able to show that it could. Only in the
Indian law? Or is this had university university? Order so the major major
jurisdictions that we study about US and the UK. This is how it is at the time of
Commission of the offense. No matter what your medical condition is. If you are
unable to the essentials again know the nature of the add country. Turn floor
wrong if you have. If you’ve been rendered incapable. Or forming intent? During
that time. During the time of the Commission of the Act, then you are, then you
have the defense, but a chronic mental health issue by default is not a difference.
OK, which is why the difference between legal insanity versus maintenance
medical insanity. Yeah

is that came to mind when we're talking about insanity was the co-ed killer
edmundIs that came to mind when we’re talking about insanity? Was the Coed
killer Edmund Chemical wear, yeah. Yeah, he killed him. He killed at the age of 15,
was diagnosed with schedule Kenya and convinced the psychiatrist that he was a
cured and went out and at the age of 21 winter ahead on a killing spree and
started killing female college students. Yeah, yeah, he’s he. I think he’s. Isn’t he
the one who’s like really tall? Uhm, yeah. He was. He’s known I. I mean he was
called something. He was very tall I think to 6:10 or something six times it’s 11
very tall, yeah, 206 meters. I don’t know what that is. Yeah, 69. Yeah, he’s the one
so when I said mine hunter he’s the one that I’m cleaning of that even during
those interviews that they show and and you know Mindhunter is a dramatized
documentary of sorts. They are trying to show there there’s so many actual serial
killers that you’re talking about and these interviews. Actually did happen. In
those interviews, he tries to. Keep going, he tries to keep it running this site.
Gnosis or schizophrenia right but after some time. Uhm, he gains the trust, or
rather the the interviewer gains his trust and he sort of opens up right? So it was
it was Edward Kemper. Thank you. Thank you snoopy. So yeah, it is, it is. Um
possible. Yeah. Um, there is another case if you want to take a look at it. Um? In
Canada there was a person on who on the Greyhound bus. Um, decapitated one
of the passengers in a in a hole. Breakdown episode the issue with these things is
that it. It ends up sort of demonising. Certain mental health issues. Uhm, you
know, and you know, like people say, this person is psychopathic or this person is
a social path, right? Um? Be there all serial killers, oh killers or criminals who have
peace mental health issues. But there are many more who live with these
conditions and never commit a crime. Right, so that is that is a very sorry affair
that, uh, these these two crime that happened end up, kind of. And these
discussions would have ended. You know, a demonizing people quickly suffered
even even people who served from schizophrenia. Not not all of them. There are
few who have. A very, um grave state of it very seriously. To fit that they are not
able to manage it, but many majority. 98% of them. Do you live with it and the
management? Thanks. Say A, which is why I feel. Personally it is. It is good to not
say that medical insanity by default is a defense because a lot of people would be
considered medically insane, which is a very loose term to say having mental type
of psychological conditions. Would not necessarily always come in. Right, so that
is one thing to I think. Keep in consideration to also continue to be sensitive to
these matters, right? OK, there is one common primal fear is also a good movie
related to insanity issue. In case model check it out clear. Someone else was also
single. So in the in the list there are lot of movies, emphasis and from now has
quote and there are some that I have put without a few movies that I have in
person treating that list as a watch list for myself. As well, so I will. I will also go
and watch those movies before all of you submit your assignments, yeah? OK,
that ended up being a very long discussion. Yes movie. Uhm professor, it’s already
been a long discussion. I think I’ll just mail this to you if I go ahead, go ahead and
I’ll take a break. Go ahead. Yes, professor, so I want you to talk about antisocial
personality disorder. Sociopathy. Why? Also obviously there’s a Gray area when
you take the defense of mental insanity and UM, when you talk about sociopathy.
You you say that the person has to be capable of knowing the consequences of
the crime that that person has committed but? What? What is the person so that
obviously the consequences are based on a model, right? And a moral wrong that
has been generally accepted by the public, right? So if a person has a different
perception of a model writing model wrong, and this perception isn’t based on
reading, but like an inherent understanding or a way of looking at the world,
which is usually what happens. In sociopathy, UM, how do you categorize? That
person is meant to be seen? Because again saying would be something that
conforms to normative standards of behavior and insane would be something
that’s a deviance from it. And this deviance, when it comes to what is smaller
than what is not modeled, is something that isn’t learned by a sociopath. But it’s
something that’s either caused by a. Oh really, in which that person, UM,
functions of the mind, that person functions, and that that’s how it’s categorized
as a mental health disorder. Sociopathy, but it’s not taken as it’s not considered in
the defense of mental insanity. As an exception, why is there so in that Gray area?
Doesn’t law become a little ambiguous because so take the example of, say Luka
Magnotta in the. Have you watched the documentary don’t dash with cats on
Netflix? No, no. It’s a three part documentary. It’s a three episode documentary
about this killer who started off by killing cats and then murdered a man. In a
perfect location of Primal Instinct, I think it was the murder and travel. I think
yeah, so uh, he was not allowed the defense of. A mental insanity because he had
planned though murder properly, but then he was also a sociopath, where he
didn’t add. So the way that his murders followed was first animals and then
humans, which is usually something that happens with sociopaths. When you
start killing. Animals and then you will like the home and you don’t consider it
morally incorrect, so part that we used as grounds for insanity because. So the
norm itself? Yeah, yeah. So it is a deviation from the norm and your
understanding of right and wrong. Let us look at it from a very people
perspective, right? We understanding of right and wrong might be skewed, and
it’s not skewed. Might be your own right. You have your own understanding of
morality in. But that does not excuse your lack of understanding is below, because
low is very objective. Law is not subjective. Thank you for reading. our section
weIdea of morality is different. Right so yes. Right, so if I think that this add that
I’m doing is not morally wrong. But I know that is legally wrong. I cannot take this
defense. OK, uh, so tan? Uh, yes. Well just very quickly say I just I all wanted to
see what you basically said, but I think the reason why it is not considered as a
defense is because as you said, lower tends to be very loud, tends to be more
objective than simply looking at morality in a vacuum. And what happened then?
Sociopathy is there is just because they don’t conform to normative standards.
Doesn’t mean they’re not aware of normative standards. It’s just a willful
deviation from the normative standards. And so, yeah, in in that case they are
aware that they are fully aware that what they’re doing is wrong. It just said there
not able to empathize with their victims or you know, the normal standards of
morality. And I think in the case of or Luca Magnotta is, well, the reason why he
was convicted is because the prosecution said that he was of speaking. Is the
other reason why? A blue comic not only did insanity was not because he was a
sociopath, it was because he claimed that he was schizophrenic. And uh, the
prosecution basically said, basically established that he was speaking is it’s a
pending, so that’s why he was convicted me. OK, OK. Um? Yeah, to also say, uh,
maybe I would contend little here that I won’t say that there is willful deviation
from normative standards. I think that just. There is no understanding of no
matter standards of off society and relationships. But yeah again, like you say that
does not mean that they do not have an objective understanding. A lot of people
who from diagnosed with social apathy and even psychopathy end up imitating.
Human behaviors, social behaviors, and managing their condition and become
part of the society, right? Yeah, because I just wanted to mention it’s not
necessary that sociopaths feel new empathy to it can range from Littleton. It’s
very subjective, yet because all mental health conditions. Thank you man, you for
their intervention. All mental health conditions will exist on a spectrum, right? So
on this spectrum with extra pressure and also shop at the psychopathy.
Schizophrenia? Every person who’s been diagnosed by it. Every condition does
not look the same, right? So two people suffering from so sharp that keeping
having been diagnosed with social pathy might have symptoms, lifestyles visually
in their behavior. They might look very, very. Different, they might seem very
different in how they deal with it and what symptoms are they showing or not
showing up there suffering from right? So it will exist on a spectrum. Right, OK
thank you man. Yeah we have taken a lot of time for this, but it’s OK. I think it was
a good discussion. I don’t. I don’t really mind, but whatever, we don’t we’re not
able to cover table to end of September. Alright, OK, let us take a break. Still a.
Well, 20. OK, let’s reconvene at 12:20, and then we’ll move on with a intoxication
in such right? OK, thank you.
DEFENCE of INTOXICATION
Should we begin? We’re going to talk about now. The defense of intoxication.
Right and 85 and eating 6. A cover the defensive intoxication. In defense of
intoxication. The idea is this pain as. That off, um? Insanity because again, see
that is all within the unbrellas absence of criminal intent, right? So we’re talking
about a situation where a person there ccusd would not be able to form requisite
intent. Right? But there are two kinds of intoxication, involuntary intoxication and
voluntary intoxication. Involuntary intoxication is considered a valid defense.
Voluntary intoxication is again somewhat in the lines of a qualified immunity on
the face of it. Involve voluntary intoxication is not considered a defence. Again,
there is a 4C ability test because of which which they use to see if this person was.
Thank you both for men intent on a state new or did not know that bullet
internally drinking there, making the decision to drink. They might commit some
acts contrary to law. OK. Now involuntary intoxication is pretty clear. Cut is the
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 had the time of doing it
is by reason of intoxication. Administered with alcohol or administered with
drugs, any substance that is going to alter your state of mind and decision making.
That involuntary intoxication can be brought in if it was forced on you, or you
unknowingly consumed those substances. OK, and because of such consumption
because of such state of intoxication, you are unable to know the nature of your
act or that what you’re doing is wrong or contrary to law. Add the time of the
Commission of the Act. OK, so always it has to be at the time of the Commission
of the Act. Because the formation of intent. You know, as opposed to a
premeditated murder in such way is where he’s saying that intent has been
forming. But in these cases defenses you will have to see that is this defense
applicable at the time of the Act, OK? So that is involuntary intoxication under
section 85 and R. Essentials have stated already incapable of knowing the nature
of the Act, incapable of knowing that it is stronger cordially to law, similar to a
personal concerned mind, and that the thing which intoxicated him was given to
him without his knowledge or against his wishes. Section 85. Section 86. Is
voluntary intoxication. It says the fence requiring a particular intent or knowledge
committed by one who is intoxicated. So in this situations a particular intent or
knowledge is required of note treatment. What is the situation in cases with an
act done is not an offense 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 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. What this means is. We’re talking about when we
say particular knowledge or intent. Beginning pasifik intent. There are basic
intent, crimes, crimes of basic intent. Then there are primes of specific intent in
someone tell me what are primes of some crimes of specific intent in the IPC. This
movie. Um Professor robbery murder. No why? Why is Aubrey? Um, basically is.
The person this robbery is because you’ve planned to go into a house with the
intention of robbing the house, or stealing or particular goods. So robbery is a
crime of specific. OK. OK, OK sure I will. I will elaborate on that danysh. Yes,
Professor, actually I just wanted to add that in in cases of a. Uh, you know, the uh,
in cases of UM, what is it called I’m? I’m sorry because, uh. Um? Specific intent,
apologies, yeah, so there’s a big indent increases the specific intent. The defense
of recklessness never suffices, so that further buttress is a point here that crimes
are specific intent. Include tools where. He specific intention was kept in mind to
reach a specific goal and the preparation necessary for that specific bold was
undertaken, and then that you know that the the set goal was reached. So there
is planning in there and everything. So there is a specific intent in mind where
recklessness never suffices the difference will take. OK. OK. Sure, both of these.
Sort of touch the point up so basic intent is an intent to commit the act. OK, that
is simply the intent to commit the act that is going to, you know. Um, need to be
offense. Snooty was sync. Robbery can come within. It kept him from within it
because it requires a dishonest intention. Robbery is also with the intent to harm
or force, right? So there is an extra qualifier added to the basic intent of
recklessness or committing this act. But then you’re also saying. Is it dishonest
intention there is a qualifier to be intentional? Those are considered to be specific
intent crimes, right? Dinesh D’souza want to say something. Yes. OK, alright so
can’t you had your hand please? Did I cover what you wanted to say? I just work
would be an example of primal basic intent. A crime of basic intent. Would be. A
crime of basic intent would be something like murder. Right? Weird or no, a crime
of specific intent. Sorry would be murder, robbery, burglary. Stealing surpassed.
Damaging someone property here, specific intent. Basic intent, injuring someone,
assaulting someone up or manslaughters. You’re going to study the difference
between murder, manslaughter, homicide, always relationships, right? So,
murder being premeditated, it’s always specific intent robbery. If there is
dishonest intention to force to steal a burglary, again, there’s dishonest intention
and any attempt to commit an offence. Is a specific intent right because the
attempt is then qualified by the intention to commit that offence? OK, so these
become specific intent crimes, whereas manslaughter, injury, assault. These
become basically intent. Offenses. OK, uh, just uh. So in like the levels of Mens
Rea. UM, I guess indent Rick knowledge, recklessness and negligence. I specific
intent crimes. Word required. Do previous. Yes. So murder is grave. Robbery is
and burglary is graver than theft. Right attempt to commit a graver offence.
Something like modern Roebke is a higher fence then attempt to commit a maybe
just injury, you know, uhm. So yeah, uh, for example. Arson. Is a clear fence
specific intent damaging of property right? Yeah man yeah. Uh, yes professor, I
wanted to know if there was some sort of a provision for a situation like, say, peer
pressure, group of friends sitting together. Person A does not want to voluntarily
like take the drink. However, they do eventually take it by their own hand and
consume the substance, however. Uhm, it was because of this, you know,
unspoken peer pressure, sort of a thing now that cannot be proved in a court of
law. But eventually that decision was made on the basis of that pressure. So how
does that work out? Uh, no, so that is not a difference. Under law, it is not a
difference, so you would you would think of this under compulsion, that you’ve
been, you know, there’s a compulsion you’re feeling this compulsion to have this
drink. And then Paul Interrole intoxicate yourself. Where is the argument that
you’re making money? Is that maybe it should not be considered voluntary,
should be considered involuntary? But, uh, then I think we could clubbing these
two sections on a voluntary versus involuntary or toxication compulsion. So
compulsion, peer pressure would come within the umbrella, at least within the
law of compulsion. And compulsions is only when there is imminent threat of
death. Right, right? So anything below that is not compulsion. You have made an
informed choice. Right, OK, professor, thank you. OK, alright smootie. Um? Adult
inspecific and basic indent. I got a little confused, so in this example like I’ll in in
this hypothetical is suppose I’m under the influence and I kill a person assuming
that they are. I go ahead and I kill a person thinking that they are the devil or
something and that would be basically basic intent. But if I if I have a grudge
against that person and I go kill them, that would be specific intent, right? Or so is
it voluntary intoxication? Um? I guess, yeah, if it was listed, if there’s voluntary
intoxication and you were able to show that this was a crime of basic intent, then
you would not have the defense. But again, it is not about what kind of intent you
want. If you would say that because of this intoxication I went into such a state
that created a state of unsoundness of mind, that I thought this person was the
demon, then you might be able to club 86. With 84 and then say it created. This
unsoundness of mind, right? Because unsound mind can can be because of
stimulants as well. Right, uh, but if you were saying I was voluntarily intoxicated, I
have a grudge against this person and I wind. I was able to form this specific.
Intent. I was not able to form a. So it is not about forming specific intent, it’s
about the crime, right? So if you are committing a crime that is off specific intent,
it’ll become a mitigating factor because Section 8 is 6 is only saying that even if a
person is voluntarily intoxicated. They will not be able to make specific. That is
what section 86 is assuming. So if you have committed a crime of specific intent.
Voluntary intoxication would be used as a mitigating factor, probably get a less
sentence and not be completely charged. I mean, you will be convicted, but it will
be used as a mitigating factor Smithee. Um, yes, but I said I M just I had my one
more hypothetical that came to mind. Uhm, so am I a man has a grudge against
this girl because she repeatedly denied his advances and he tells us friends that
he’s going to take but he doesn’t do anything about it. He just told his friends that
he wants to repeal and. Two days later, at a party, his friend slipped A and
intoxicant into his drink. And then he’s involuntarily intoxicated. And then he goes
and he rapes this girl, UM, how? How would we then decide the liability of this
man? Because two days ago he stated his intent to do an act which he then
committed under involuntary intoxication. Are you? So. In involuntary intoxication
also. You have to be able to show. That he would not able to understand the
nature of people. So if expired, the. Prosecution is able to show. To the point of
defence of intoxication is the prosecution is able to show that no, even though
this person was involved in to the intoxicated, he was able to form intent and
they can show previously, right that this person has been thinking about it. Maybe
they can use that as evidence. They can use these statements as evidence, and
then if we are able to show at the point of the committing of the crime, this
person was able to form intend this person did know what he was doing, then
there will be more defense. So see this even with involuntary intoxication. You
have to show that you were indeed people of understanding the nature of
defense. Being involuntary intoxicated is not an absolute immunity. As opposed
to being under seven years of age. Right, so someone slipped you a drug. You are
intoxicated. But you are able to form intent. You are able to understand the
nature of your add. You are able to tell this is the girl that has been saying no to
me. I am going to go now in paper. Then it is not a defense anymore because you
could distinguish the this person and you could actually form the intent. OK, so
involved intoxication is not an absolute immunity. And voluntary intoxication is
not. Oh, an absolute nondefense right it there can be a mitigating factor. Does
that make sense with it? Uhm yes, professor uhm. What would a I’m sorry I’m just
dragging this little go ongoing. Um? So bullet, he was intoxicated to a level where
he was in Cape. He he had no control over his actions where he was in a place
where he couldn’t distinguish right and wrong and he was functioning on that
intoxication. But he did make a statement that he was going to rape her. So how
would then? How old is liability then? We decided because he already had that
intent. Two days at just the there was, but there was a gap of two days between
statement of that intention and the commencement of that, and that act was
again committed under intoxication. How then, would the case proceeds? So.
Technically. On the low. If he’s incapable of. Swarming intent. Then he should not
be held liable. However. Under offenses of rape. Now, the judicial proceedings are
becoming that. Our intoxication. Will not be a defence. Forward defence for free.
So we’ll have to wait for mold judgments. There all foreign jurisdictions who have
decided that intoxication is not a defense. Fuji. And India seems to. Um? Describe
in in in some manner to the same opening. OK, now. Let me tell you so. This is an
Australian scales looking process where it was established that are you. That
excessive drinking. Is no defense for attempted rape or murders or rich right? So
the current discourse in India is well, is that intoxication is not going to be,
especially if it is voluntary intoxication that is not going to be a defense for it,
because Streep is considered to be. Updating body, serious offense and there is a
higher standard of proving that you could not understand the nature of your
actions. Right, so maybe when we study sexual offences a remind me then and we
can do a deeper dive into the defenses then alright, but the current discourse is
and there is a lot of controversy around it that intoxication should not be
considered a defense. In offenses are free. OK, and we can continue this
discussion when we come back to sexual offences simply. Alright sweetie. Yes,
that’s OK. Alright, uh, just let me I know. Besides discussing all of these things, so I
want to talk about wanting toxication this section now the basic understanding
again is that. If. Oh this person has been voluntarily, instantly intoxicated. Or has
you know voluntarily consumed alcohol or drugs? Whatever this winter,
intoxication? There will be no defense for crimes of basic intent. OK. But where
there are crimes of specific intent? Section 86 can be a mitigating factor in
sentence Ng, etc. OK, that is the difference between involuntary in poetry
intoxication. The the attribute, the adknowledge that we attribute is that if this
person had been sober, would he have known the nature of his actions? That is
the knowledge that is attributed to voluntarily intoxicated person. Is, well, OK,
there is something called the 4C ability. Just um. Very briefly, the Foreseeability
test says. Um? Uh, that win a person is voluntarily taking alcohol consuming
alcohol. This shows that. Then it shows that this person is acting negligently and
wants to lose control. OK, if the accused wanted to be in control. Then they would
have stopped the consumption. And specially if there is history and there is
knowledge that this person getting drunk make calls a, you know reckless actions,
etc, right? Because a lot of times people know what their capacity is when it
comes to alcohol for example. Right, so if this person knows if it is foreseeable
that me consuming all of this alcohol is going to make me act recklessly, then
there is. This is Forsey ability and if this person knew that this is something that
could happen or the people around him new. If you know there’s something
common with this person. Then they can not hold the defence of AH. You know?
Right? Um and the actions of this person are taken into consideration. So that is
the foreseeability test. So can we foresee that through the consumption through
the continued consumption of alcohol, they might act recklessly? Right? So yeah,
it might be depends on case to case basis. But this is what they’re basically saying,
is that overconsumption of alcohol voluntarily is in itself a negligent act. This is
the reason why we do not drink in traffic right then, we have delete provisions. It
is because we know that driving under the influence is. Reckless behavior. It is
going to harm someone. So by default over consumption of alcohol, this is
basically the principle on which they’re saying that bullet today intoxication is.
Not a defense because it in itself would be considered a negligent act right? That
this should be foreseeable. OK, so done. Awesome or two things. UM, firstly, uh,
so section 86 in section 86 we’re working with the assumption that in toxic, if a
person is intoxicated, they cannot form specific intent, right? Uhm, and also
secondly, with respect to 4C ability. Or what about cases of alcoholism like sin is
addicted to alcohol or cannot help themselves? Could that be or defense? Or
perhaps a mitigating factor? Um? In cases of voluntary and observation. Or would
that be? It would still be volunteering toxication good because no one is forcing.
It’s not involuntary. Involuntary is when you do not have knowledge that you are
being intoxicated. A person’s alcoholic has knowledge that they’re consuming at
all. They’re going to become intoxicated. They are just dependent on it. Right, so
there’s no lack of knowledge there. However, if someone. Who who is an
alcoholic and then commit an offence. Um? One it will not be considered
involuntary because no ones forcing it on them or it is not without nodded two
again table underwater intoxication. It is a specific intent. Crimes will be mitigated
and. Basic intent times uhm? You know? It will be a defense, right? So if if they
have committed offenses of basic intent, it will be a different. Section 86 will be a
difference. Right, so it won’t be considered. I think that was your question. It
won’t be considered involuntary intoxication. So for an alcoholic, if they are
consuming alcohol, they commit an offence. Basic intent crimes as it is, it is a
defense. Specific intent crimes. There will be no defense of being an alcoholic.
And a specific intent times as it is, is a mitigating factor, but will also depend on
the on the. Facts of the case. Maybe a judge can use, uh, the chronic condition as
a mitigating factor, right? But it will not be considered involuntary. OK, doesn’t
make sense so damn any any point of contention with this. What do you think?
Uhm, I mean, I personally think that it it should be an absolute defense, but I
think because there is a dependency on it, it should consider other mitigating
factor in toggle sentencing at least. Yeah, because alcoholism is also considered a
mental health situation. Right so insert maybe it could work as a mitigating factor.
All of these things are taken into consideration, right? Solid, but there is no. There
is nothing in procedure that will be considered as a mitigating factor. So whatever
is not in procedure to be considered as a mitigating factor, judges. Might you
know? Um um newsletter. Dish and sensing make it a mitigating factor. Soda of
course not. The thing about having children goodness there is that it is also seen
under the cap bit of insanity and then monotoned room will not happen. Cases
where will not have been applied. Saying that the habitual drunkenness. Had
resulted in to the phrase delirium treatment and because of that person was not
in capacity and because of that nature of it was considered, and I think the
section shifted. So it will not be seen under intoxication person. You are right and
section the unsound. Yeah yeah yeah, yeah. So I guess it depends on what it made
the state of mind in that moment right? So did alcoholism. Thank you. Thank you.
Sort of. So did the condition of alcoholism. Oh um. Compound. The the mental
state of the person in such a manner that, because of the condition they were not
able to form that intent at that point, right? So it completed depends on what
stance the defense wants to take. It can become it can be voluntary intoxication.
Or or or it can go to insanity due to intoxication when they go to unsound mind.
OK. Alright ah. Moving on Oh no OK. Buster versus state of steps. You will send
this case. Can someone raise their hand and tell me what this case was about?
Yes. No one, no one is at the case, right? And I think this from the first set of cases
that I sent to you. Yes, sorry. One second. Speaking no, no, you go ahead. Into the
case, and I think the fact the case for that they were just a prisoner who raped
this 13 year old girl while he was in. No no no no no no no. First, OK, OK, who is
the other person? Mulika Oh yes ma’am. Oh yes. I’m so I believe that this order
very. But I believe that it’s a case, but of course he was essentially a retired
military officer, was actually charge of murder. So. There was a wedding or wear. I
got your delete row there or man who’s actually being head which is passed from
also got really drunk and in that I don’t. Create that I do. I’ve been like because of
something there was a dispute over him wanting to take a seat as name. And, uh,
he add end got really agitated because he was drunk and he ended up shooting
the boy, yeah. Dizziness. I know that. OK, OK, thank you Malika Mangere.
Anything to add? Oh yes, I think Monica covered most most fed and I think the
issue was whether the the offensive committed falls under section 300 through or
section Section 204. Having regard to section increase, it’s A5 PC and I think the
judge goes on to say that since he was a the. I mean, uh, I think witnesses were
really clear. I think somewhere with statement it says that he actually went along
to the town or the local police station or something that he had enough cohesion
and he was not actually completely unconscious as to whether he can judge that
the ACT is committing. I mean, it’s it’s conscious enough to know that a seat that
he chose. Yeah, that he wants a seat and I think. The People’s Act is dangerous. All
know whether it’s in pause, the test of people that want to touch. OK yes yes.
Thank you thank you mentioned some Ricky. Add the significance of this case was
so the Supreme Court post this case later that voluntarily intoxicated man is
presumed to have the knowledge if he was sober. And all then there was a
obviously a lot of debate around the intention and. It from this case. They also
debated on the degree of intoxication, like what degree of intoxication would
make a man. Intoxicated or sober. Considering the circumstances, but. Yeah OK,
OK. Alright, I think all three of you. Covered with the facts of the case are and
some Ruthie actually gave us some of the guidelines as well. So what happened in
Busti? Uh, was the seat of absolute, like they will see that is this retired military
officer. Who’s attending the ceremony this mid day meal is going on. He wanted
to sit on the chair that a 13 year old was sitting on. He asked the boy to get up.
The boy refused. That is. Voluntary intoxication. And he’s he’s upset with the boy.
He takes out a pistol from his pocket, shoots the boy right, and the boy dies on
the spot. Now they take the defense of intoxication. And then there saying that.
You know there was no intent form the core traject if this because like a manager,
I was saying his actions afterwards showed that he understood the consequences,
right? He was able to come out of the house. He was able to walk around and
show that he could foresee the cons for civility test. He could foresee the
consequences. Off the app, they clear withheld guilty under 300 of ITC. Just
murder now. They came up. The Supreme Court came up with the following
guidelines on voluntary intoxication, which is the absence of understanding the
nature and consequences of an act, whether produced by junction list or
otherwise, is not a defense of the. Saying charged OK under. Only because you did
not understand there was an absence of understanding. Weather produced by
Dunkin Ness or otherwise is not a defence of the crime. That is strike. That is
murder. It’s a specific intent. The evidence of trunk and a switch renders the
accused incapable of formulate the specific intent essential to constitute the
crime should be taken into consideration with other proven facts in order to
determine whether or not he had intent, right? So there is one we are showing
that this did this person. Have once this person intoxicated, but then you also
have to take into consideration other proven facts. Is stab Liszt facts through
testimony or otherwise, to be able to understand that? Did this person have a?
You know the capacity to understand the consequences or not, So what will they
do with that? They take into consideration much like. Uh, you’re up. Child of
immature understanding. How does this child add after the fact after this act has
been committed, right? So they take into consideration the fact how is reacting
after he shot so good right? We was walking around, he was talking. He was
showing that he was for seeing the consequences. Of this action. Right, so they
take all of that. I took count through witness testimony. So not just drunkenness,
but this is basically sort of a guideline for evidential procedure, right? David Insert
trunk in this was short to prove incapacity of rational judgment, and nearly
establishing that his mind. Is affected by a drink which gave way to some violent
fashion. Does not report the presumption that a man intends the natural
consequences of his acts. OK, so only because a person is Strunk does not mean
that they are incapable of rational judgment. OK, then Toxication has to be over
level that of provable level were able to prove because of intoxication. They are
incapable of rational judgement. So being drunk is not an absolute immunity
because being drunk does not mean that you cannot. Make judgment so that you
have some prove that because of being from because of being in toxicated. To a
degree. To such a degree that at that moment you were incapable of making
rational judgement. Alright, so these were the guidelines with respect to specific
intent to consider all right. Well, training toxication with respect to specific intent
offenses. Bed technically six becomes a mitigating factor, but not a common
section. It is not immune. OK. Um? OK. Section 92. He’s talking about consent. It
basically says so. We have consent provisions right from 87 to 91 and 92 shows.
Aspects that are not covered in. In the consent to patients, so we’re going to talk
about 92 with consent, which seems like we’ll be able to cover after two weeks.
When I come back to you. Plus, we’ll we’ll deal with consent and private defense
10 OK. But 93 and 94 also comes up in your umbrella term of absence of intent.
92 is very simple, 93 is communication made in good faith. OK no communication.
Leading KP is an offence by design of any harm to the person to whom it is space.
If it is made for the benefit of that person and. Um? Illustration here is of a
surgeon, right, and it is very telling. Already. That’s a surgeon might ask delivered
move that is shocking, but they do not intend to cause the consequences of their
shock, right? You can’t always still let someone will die of shock and when a
surgeon is communicating something you’re communicating. Good faith. OK, so
air surgeon in good faith communicates to patient. His opinions that he cannot
live. We have a, you know, a fetal condition. The patient dies in consequence of
the shock he has committed to offense, though he knew it to be likely that the
communication might pause for patients death, right? That this section. 93 No
accident, under compulsion. This is this is the one that I think smootie sort of
touched upon when she was talking about peer pressure. I think it was happy.
This is act to which a person is compelled by section 94. Excellent compulsion.
Here’s a accident under compulsion. Let me just read it, except murder. OK, so 94
does not cover the offensive murder. If you’ve committed murder, you cannot say
that you are compelled by threats and this actually goes back to Earth previous
class and we were talking about Miss City. OK, you talk about Mississippi in one of
the examples that was brought up. Um? Was I don’t really find anyone Malika. Or
someone or something. Um? I really don’t know, but the example was or maybe it
was the other section. Uh, the example was the hypothetical world. That up from
the boat example, right from this team, this exit that if I am on a vessel in the
ocean, and I think that this iceberg is there, or you know whatever rock is there,
and I will absolutely die. But if I ran into the other boat. I Will Survive to the other.
People will die. Is it considered a necessity? After the compulsion also comes
within the same principle that was that that hypothetical, that was created in the
law says. This is something that we were talking in law school on day one. The law
says. It would rather you die then you kill someone else. In no situation should
you be killing someone else. OK, so where there is so that if someone has put a
gun to your head go kill this person or alcohol you. It is not an exception. Right,
But if you kill someone because someone else is going to kill you, right? The
aggressor is the one who is going to kill you. You can kill the aggressor, but you
can’t kill an innocent person. Does it make sense? That seems to be the principle.
You cannot kill an innocent person to save yourself. That is sort of an underlying
principle in all of these general exception, if someone is going to kill you. They are
the aggressive and and you defend yourself. That is a different matter. Right, and
even then, in a lot of clear cases it will only be a mitigating factor and you might
not get complete defense. OK, so here it accidentally compulsion section 94 after
which a person is compelled by threats except murder. And offences against the
state, punishable with death, which is which is very strange. Weather offenses
against the state punishable with death. Can someone can someone raise their
hands and tell us? Could you please repeat the question? Yeah, so the section
says, except murder and offences against the state, punishable with death. What
offenses against the state, punishable with death manj? A professor treason and
form of probably terrorist acts. OK reason inform of terrorist acts. The tongue.
Hey. Order to save treason. Cheese and. OK. Offences against the state, uh would
be waging board. Sedition, Rebellion, rebellion, and treason, OK, and these are
largely punishable. We did, sweetie. Professor, I was going to say like a military
coup may be organizing a military coup, but that would again be waging war, but.
How is sedition punishable by death in India? You mentioned sedition offences
against you. OK, OK wait a second, let me confirm. I know that treason is. Recent
Beijing war is. Suggestion copernicium and maybe smarted. Yes, let me correct
myself there. Me. Yeah, it’s a three years. Waiting award is punishable with death,
right? Sedition is one of the offences against the state, but this will cover only
offences against the state. Punishable would kick, so that will be waging a war
against the state. OK, so for the purpose of this it is not all differences. That are,
uh, that are against the state. But offenses that are punishable. With death, but
that is going to be section 121, which is declairing or threatening to wage wars or
promoting any war against the Government of India. So only this one section. So
two sections. Um, are an exception to the exception murder and Section 121 off.
Waging board against the state, so sedition, treason, debilly, and. Auto fences
against it, but do not come under this section is that clear? Uh, thank you. OK.
Nothing is an offence, so except murder in Section 121, nothing is in the fence
which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats which at the time
of doing it reasonably calls the apprehension that instant death to that person will
otherwise be the consequence, provided the person doing the. Act did not of his
own accord. It leaves himself in this situation by which he became subject to such
an St. OK. Explanation is the two explanations of a gang of the court. Can
someone treat this explanation one and two? Yes it can. A person, sorry. A person
who off his own accord or by reasonable thread of being beaten, joins a gang of
dacoits knowing their character is not entitled to the benefit of this exception on
the ground of this having been compared by his associates to do anything that is
an offense by law. A second person seized by Gangloff dacoits and forced by
threat of instant death to do a thing which is an offense by law, for example, is
Smith compared to take his tools and to force the door of the house for the cards
to enter and plunder. It is entitled to the benefit of this exception. OK, thank you
so damn. So why is explanation one not in offense? Because he’s doing it of his
own accord and there is no apprehension of instant death here. Yeah right, thank
you so. So the deciding factor becoms. Instant death. Application of instant death,
right. So explanation two there is an apprehension of instant death, which is why
this person is compared to join this gang and help with you know his tools and
forcing a door open etc. Whereas explanation one. This person. Because the
threat of being beaten not of instant death joins to avoid being beaten and makes
this decision of their own accord so they cannot plead the defence under
compulsion, OK? So the main factor is. Back in some death, if the risk is anything
but instant death, the section will not apply. The thread should be present at the
time of doing the acts in the first, in the second explanation. If they are saying we
are going to kill you. And they seize him. And they say, you have to open this door
or we will kill you. They have a gun to his head, etc. And there is this
apprehension or consistent death while committing the act of helping of abetting
these dacoits by opening the stores, etc. That is, when it is considered to be a
defense under compulsion. OK, as opposed to the original. UM, uh, the peer
pressure example that was given. Uh, it won’t be considered compulsion. If this
person ends up consuming alcohol on his own and then commits an offence,
right? So it won’t be considered compulsion that they, first of all consuming
alcohol, is not innocence, maybe consuming drugs. If there are controlled
substances that you’re not supposed to consume, but you are consuming them,
and it is an offence. It is not compulsion under, unless there is apprehension of
instant death. OK, so peer pressure is not enough of a compulsion. OK, so that is
acts done under compulsion mahonia. A professional feel pressure hypothetical
that I gave. If that had to be like tweaked a little bit in terms of like say this person
has gone out with a group of people who are probably not the best crowd and
there is no direct. They have not like explicitly said that. If you don’t take this
substance then we will kill you. However, that person has her fear of death, as in,
like the sort of people that he is around. If he refuses to sort of like you know, join
them and like indulge in whatever they’re indulging, then there would be a risk of
them, like probably out of fear. If they consume it then. Easter able to prove. That
there isn’t. There is a standing apprehension of death, but it has to be instant. It
has to be in. The apprehension has to be of instant death if they’re able to prove
that you know, maybe they’re able to show history. There was another person
who said to him not going to consume trucks. They had not threatened him, but
the moment he said no, they immediately shot him. I was scared that that would
also happen to me if they’re able to show through those examples or or buy
something through some evidence that there was evidence of instant death in
such a manner, then yes, sure, right? But I feel like it might be. You know difficult
to show that unless they can show that it had happened before. Manje anything
to add anything to content on this. No professor, I was the one who asked the
question. I was just. I just add muted to say thank you to my answer right right.
No no professor understood. Thank you. OK OK alright. Syndrome. Um provided
this book on Survation out of Curiosity, section 94 mentioned, except murder, so
this doesn’t include culpable Heaviside, right? I mean? Not in there, right?
Homicide compelled by threats. Uh, yes, ma’am like except model is an exception
here. Except more than the fences. This is not including cultural homestead,
right? No, it’s not an exception, right? No? No. Because culpable homicide is that
you are. Actually. Wait, give me a give me a second. Show No, uh, culpable
homicide is not included. Alright, thank you. OK so it is just murder that is that is
included Sudan. Uhm, the surfer. Overtime I can ask no, no. Go ahead. I can take
two questions and then beginning with the class, go ahead. Ashley forgot my
questions. OK, you can just you can just write to me, yeah? I’ll do that. Mulika
come professor, it’s actually hypothetical. I’m not sure if I’ll be able to be very
clear, so just let me know if I am. If if, for example, we’re drinking, you know,
grow, perform with a group of friends and and one of the person is also already
really drunk. I did get the other person really drunk as well, so like you know,
compelled forces the person to some extent and UM, so in that case, let’s say A is
already really intoxicated and they get be involuntarily intoxicated by forcing him
again and again. And then. And being really drunk state? UM, talk about like how
funny it would be to, you know. Just put a gun on a kids head and just do it. And
like you know they don’t. Of course, at this point they don’t know the
consequence of their action because they really drunk and they go and kill a
young boy while both of them are drunk. And since B is the one who put the gun
to. The kids head OK be is being held liable for the crime. So, in that case
Professor even if B says that he was working voluntarily intoxicated um, and is the
one at fault, can’t also take the um. Defense bold that saying that maybe another
person as in like if it’s established that the reason why he forced B was because
he had already reached a stage where he was really drunk and could not form an
idea that him forcing these so much could lead to such consequences. In that
case, would nobody be held liable for the kid’s death because both of them were
in absolutely slaughters. So there’s right. First, let’s talk about a. Here we have
established is voluntarily intoxicated. Date. So let’s keep his actions separate from
these actions for now. Then there will be joint liability and all that stuff, right? But
let us only talk about whether they, whether they fall within the exception or not.
It is voluntarily intoxicated. Those who want to leave can leave. I’ve already
screenshotted attendance alright. Um? Is Warren turn intoxicated? Murder is a
specific intent crime, even if they’re not able to form intent because of voluntary
intoxication. Because they have. This is a specific intent crime. They will be held
liable, although it will be a mitigating factor. The fact that they are. Walter
intoxicated. That is clear that is established in law. The question that you are
asking is. Off B being voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated. So here the question
will become not of first base liability, but first they’ll have to establish that was be
in fact voluntarily intoxicated. Or involuntary and oxidative so the prosecution will
have to show and the defense will have to report. Or the defense will have to
show in. The prosecution will report. Weather a. Ivoice in a situation. Boys
compelling enough, and I don’t mean, come under compulsion of 94 was
compelling enough, was pressuring enough in his really intoxicated state that be
could not say no. So was it enough of a force, right? So the first the question that
they will first raise it, is it in fact voluntary intoxication? I’m sorry, involuntary
intoxication if they’re able to show that you know they could have easily said no.
Because B could not be overpowered by a in his state. They will say this is
voluntary intoxication. It is not involuntary. If you tweak to think a little and you
like it was not just a, there was a group of people who are really drunk and very
aggressive and they forced intoxication upon him. But again, look at. In voluntario
intoxication. Without his knowledge or against his will, right? So if it is, it is done
against his will in such a manner that he could not say no, he could not move
away from this situation. Then he would be considered to be involuntarily
intoxicated. So first they will establish whether it is voluntary or involuntary based
on that right in your. Example, If you’re able to say that this person was so
intoxicated, he was so intoxicated, there is no way that he could force alcohol
upon be without him wanting to consume alcohol. So if that is done. Then B
would be considered to be voluntarily intoxicated, and again, the same section of
voluntary intoxication would apply to him as it did on P, and then they’re able to
determine a specific intent crime. So it is not a difference, but is a mitigating
factor. If we tweak the facts, little end I’m adding more things. Like I said before.
He is an aggressive person when he talks ocated it. OK and B was like this person
is aggressive. I have to drink as he beat me up or something right? So against my
will I am consuming alcohol. Consuming alcohol is not an offence. Right so against
his will, his consuming alcohol. He becomes so drunk that then he commits a
crime. This can be considered involuntary intoxication, and then he would get
complete defense if he is not able to form intention because of involuntary
intoxication, then he will get the defense of intoxication. However, even if
involuntarily intoxicated. He is able to form intention because like I said, it’s not
an absolute immunity. He is able to tell that what they’re doing is wrong. He will
not get that. OK, so I’ve given you all four five scenarios. Does that make sense?
Mulika, yes. Professor, thank you so much. OK, uhm. Alright, I’m hoping I know
we we. We discussed a lot in detail, but I’m hoping that it helped taking so much
time with the sections. I will come back to your class on 27th September and I will
be taking some portions from Professor sentence module on defenses against the
human body. I’ll be discussing kidnapping and assault etc. So during that time.
During that class we will move on to a. Consent and private defense as well. All of
these cases have been sent to consent, tripling ads or trifling acts, and a private
defense, right because in the rest of the semester is mine, I can. I can pace myself
and I can complete it properly alright? OK i will see you in two weeks yes monica