Open Access Research Article
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INTOXICATION AS A DEFENCE IN IPC,1860
Published Paper
Article Details
CRITICAL
ANALYSIS OF INTOXICATION AS A DEFENCE IN IPC,1860
AUTHORED
BY - PRAKRUTHI BALLA (21010324092)
&
SISTA VYSHNA - VI (21010324120)
Symbiosis
International Deemed University
Symbiosis Law School, Htderabad
INTRODUCTION
There are three categories of abnormal people: minors,
mentally ill individuals, and intoxicated individuals. These people lack the
logic necessary to comprehend the nature of the conduct they are committing,
the methods they will use to carry it out, and its potential legal
repercussions. As the definition of the majority of offences increasingly
includes a mental component, there is a growing need for rules that protect
those who are intoxicated from punishment.
The use of alcohol in violent crimes is highly
prevalent. The effect of alcohol is that it is a depressant which reduces the
stimulation of brain and whereby a person loses control of his acts. It weakens
the inhibitions and impairs the ability to foresee consequences. Sec 85 and sec
86 of IPC deals with offenses committed by intoxicated person.
In this research paper we would analyse in detail the
meaning of intoxication under Indian Penal Code, 1860. The defences used under
intoxication and how intoxication is dealt in different countries would also be
briefly discussed. This analysis would help us gain more knowledge on Section
84,85 and 86 of IPC and there practical applicability in various judgements and
case laws.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1. Determining
the extent to which intoxication can be used as a defence.
2. To gain
better knowledge on Section 84, Section 85, Section 86 of Indian Penal Code.
3. To analyse
the crimes commited on intoxication by referring to various case laws.
4. Analysing
the views of different jurists on intoxication and drawing conclusions from
them.
5. To draw a
comparative analysis related to intoxication in different countries as it
would be beneficial
for future references.
6. To know the
defences which are provided for such crimes.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The current research is primarily based on articles
and doctrinal research. The idea of referring and analyzing the existing data
such as laws and statistics depict the research. The present research is
majorly dependent on existing laws and their impact on the current situation.
To perform a research on such a topic where values play an important role,
doctrinal research is mostly preferred and it helps us to predict data more
accurately.
In this research the information is not restricted “to analytical and prescriptive tools but also
incorporates secondary and tertiary empirical data which helps in further
critical analysis of the research topic”. Hence, the following research is
approached using these tools which is suitable for this topic.
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
1. Should
voluntary intoxication have been considered a mitigating element and if
involuntary intoxication qualifies as an exemption to criminal liability?
2. Will a person will have a defence under
section 85 if they claim that they were not in the appropriate frame of mind
when they committed the offence while under the influence of alcohol?
3. How is
intoxication as a defense treated in different countries across the world?
LITERATURE
REVIEW
The definition of voluntary drunkenness, the
conditions that must be met in order to qualify as an exemption, significant
rulings on the matter, and discussions of how voluntary intoxication relates to
criminal intent (Pillai,P.S.A., 2017)[1].
Information on recent legislative changes brought
about by changes in criminality and the exemption from criminal liability, as
well as the “scope of general exceptions' application during investigations,
the application of mens rea to legal entities, landmark decisions regarding
Sections 85 and 86 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860”, and mens rea's application
to legal entities. (Ratanlal, Dhirajlal, 2017)[2].
According to the law on intoxication-related offences,
intoxication can lead to incapacity that can serve as the foundation for
criminal culpability. This incapacity can result from intoxication with alcohol
or narcotics. (Arlie Loughnan, 2016).[3]
The origin of the idea, or the legal position that has
been taken on the matter, explains intoxication as it is codified in Sections
85 and 86 of the Indian Penal Code, the ways in which a person can be
intoxicated as well as important rulings concerning it, the burden of proof and
various types of intoxication (Madhuri, B., 2015).[4]
The details of the common law and the doctrine of
exculpatory, a brief explanation of the idea of voluntary intoxication, the use
of particular intent as a method of motivation, and the results of scientific
studies on alcoholism. (Jorome Hall, 1993)[5]
The history of the anti-drinking defence, the “partial
responsibility doctrine,” the unusual anti-voluntary intoxication defence, the
rationale behind the full responsibility rule, and legislative amendments. (Keiter, 2016).[6]
CHAPTER
II
INTOXICATION AS A DEFENCE UNDER IPC
-What is intoxication?
The defense of intoxication,
sometimes called ‘drunkenness’,
operates where a defendant attacks an individual and claims that they were so
drunk that they did not mean to do the act or did not know what they were
doing. In order to succeed, the defendant must prove that they were so
intoxicated that they could not form intentions and that they were incapable of
forming a rational intention. -Intoxication as a defence under IPC compares
with other criminal offenses in India.
-What is the intoxication defence?
The defense
of intoxication is not to be confused with the defence of being insane. Intoxication,
which is a defense to crime, for the purpose of adjudication differs greatly
from insanity.
Under the Indian Penal Code, only
three crimes are recognized to have a defense of intoxication. These are:
I.
Wilful
murder
II.
Culpable
homicide
III.
Rape
(only for male defendants)
For all other criminal offenses, no
intoxication defense exists under IPC and in the case of rape against a woman,
intoxication may actually be used as evidence against her. In addition, the
defense of intoxication can be used only by those persons who are above the age
of 15, who are able to fully understand what it is that they are doing and have
enough reason to do it.
-How is it used
by defendants in criminal trials?
Most intoxication
cases have been tried under Section 84, which deals with voluntary
manslaughter. By this section, intoxication is not a defence to murder. Section
84 of IPC States that “Act of a person of unsound mind.—Nothing is an offence
which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he
is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.” However, if the accused was
so drunk that they did not realize their actions would result in murder, such a
person can be charged for manslaughter. In the event of a charge for voluntary
manslaughter under Section 84 and if the intoxication does not fall under
Section 85, which states “Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication
caused against his will.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who,
at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing
the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to
law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him
without his knowledge or against his will.” then the court will have to decide
whether or not it was accidental (i.e. that the intoxication was not a direct
cause of the murder).
Where it is shown
that a person charged with murder was drunk at the time, then the jury may
return one of two verdicts: either guilty of murder or guilty of manslaughter,
but only if they are sure that he did not intend to kill.S
-Why use the
defence?
The test for
establishing whether a person was too drunk to form an intention is whether he
knew what he was doing, whether he saw it as wrong and whether he had capacity
to control himself.
The defense of
intoxication is usually raised by defendants where they are charged with a
criminal offence. If the jury finds that the defendant was intoxicated and
uneducated, then it would be harder for him to defend he case.
In every criminal
case, however, the accused does not have a right to use the intoxication
defense. Perhaps as a result of this impression, only a very small percentage
of murder cases ever end with an acquittal on the grounds of being too drunk to
form intentions.
Case Laws
He engaged in combat with two other people.
The appellant hit the proprietor while trying to break up the fight. He began
assaulting the policeman when they came. While being transported to the police
station, the appellant struck a second officer. He attacked a police inspector
the following day inside his cell. He was accused of four counts of causing
actual bodily harm and three counts of assaulting a police constable while he
was exercising his duty. He was found guilty of all charges, but he appealed,
arguing that because he was drunk when the offences occurred, he lacked the
mens rea necessary for guilt. Due to his intoxication, the appellant claimed he
had no memory of the incidents.
It was laid down in
the case of Basdev vs State of Pepsu[8]
that “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”.
It can be seen from
above case laws that any unlawful act committed after voluntary intoxication is
liable as if he had done that act with the same knowledge he would have if he
had not been intoxicated whereas if a person was involuntarily intoxicated then
it would be considered as manslaughter.
Intoxication v/s
Intention
Voluntary intoxication with desire “to
commit crime clearly indicates the criminal intention which is punishable under
IPC.” A Motive is something that makes a guy to establish an intention to
execute any deed. Knowing something helps a man become conscious of what he is
doing. In some circumstances, purpose and knowledge can be assumed to signify
the same thing because they are more or less interchangeable terms.
Intoxication as a Denial Under
Mens Rea
“This concept of using intoxication
as a defence under criminal law, is not a defence either by exculpation or by
excuse.” -Attorney General Northern Ireland vs. Gallagher[9].
Section 85 states that a person can
be escaped from the liability of an act which is done while in the state of
intoxication when he at the time of doing the act due to intoxication was “incapable
of knowing; the nature of the act or that he was doing something that was
either contrary or wrong to the law.”
A person who committed a crime while
suffering from a mental incapacity is not held criminally responsible,
according to Indian Penal Code, Chapter IV, which discusses General Exceptions.
It is a defence that criminal defendants may use on the grounds that alcohol
impairs the defendant's ability to comprehend the nature of the conduct they
are doing. It is the circumstance in which the person loses self-control and
rationality.
VOLUNTARY
INTOXICATION
Voluntary intoxication in India is
the act of drinking alcohol or using drugs for a purpose other than for mere
pleasure. Voluntary intoxication may be practiced for either therapeutic,
erotic, or religious purposes. Those who use such substances not to get high
but to achieve an altered state of consciousness should also be included in
this category.
There are three main
types of voluntary intoxication: pharmacological (through the use of drugs),
ergogenic (by undertaking physical activity), and transcendental (through
prayer and meditation).
There are also two
major types of voluntary intoxication: passive and active. Passive intoxication
is caused when alcohol or drugs do not enter the body through ingestion,
injection or smoking. The latter then enters the system through inhalation or
ingestion of food or drink. This type occurs when an individual is exposed to a
substance which then enters their circulation.
Active intoxication
is where the individual consciously and intentionally ingests a substance with
the intention of becoming intoxicated. According to the perspective of British
intoxication maybe still used as defence as intent is very important in a
crime. Even though he was voluntarily intoxicated himself the very fact that he
is unable to form the required intent works in his favor. The severity of the
punishment will be reduced.
Different English
jurists have expressed varying opinions regarding voluntary intoxication.
Stephen, J.- stated that although you cannot use
intoxication as an excuse for crime, you may consider whether a man formed the
necessary intention to constitute a crime when he was under the influence of
alcohol.
According to Bishop,
“evidence of intoxication is admissible for the purpose of establishing whether
he was incapable of entertaining the precise intent charged, if such intent
under the law is an important ingredient of the particular offence alleged to
have been committed.”
Dutch Courage
Rule
The “Dutch courage
rule” is founded on the idea that individuals drink not just for fun but also
to combat sadness, forget pain, and to flee from this physical and emotional
suffering. In this fantasy, he sees himself facing these challenges bravely and
successfully. As a result, drinking alcohol is frequently done to boost
courage. Drinking undermines the ability to see what one is doing as criminal
and instils a sense of self-resistance. Prior to drinking, i.e., voluntary
drunkenness, the person makes a plan for what needs to be done and develops the
courage to perform it. This rule is referred to as the courage rule. Only the
concept of voluntary intoxication is governed by this rule. This demonstrates
that someone has the intention and prior planning to carry out the conduct.
INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
Involuntary
intoxication has been variously defined as a spontaneous, involuntary and
unexpected intoxication; or as an unconscious state of drunkenness that occurs
in the absence of alcohol (Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 29th
Edition). This definition is consistent with the American Heritage Dictionary
definition of intoxication which states it as “the act or condition
of being intoxicated”.
Involuntary intoxication excludes
mens rea:
Legal theory and practise have
struggled with the issue of intoxication and criminal liability for a long
time. While it has been suggested that being intoxicated lessens or eliminates
criminal liability in some situations, it has also been contended that drunken
criminals should be held just as legally accountable as those who are sober.
However, even in legal systems that emphasize the criminal responsibility of
drunken offenders, legal theory and practise face the challenge of translating
such values into practical jurisprudence because many drunken offenders
naturally lack mens rea, one of the essential elements of responsibility for a
criminal act.
In case of “Director of Public
Prosecutions vs. Beard”[10] The defendant pleaded to being drunk
while committing rape and murder of a thirteen-year-old girl. The honorable
court decided that intoxication could only be invoked as a defence if the
accused was unable to establish the mens rea. It implies that the involuntarily
intoxication, or mens rea, is not existent in involuntary intoxication.
INTOXICATION
AND ITS DEFENCES
As discussed earlier, “voluntary
intoxication is not a defence to general intent crime. It can only be
considered as a defence for a crime of specific intent.” It is also only a
partial defence and the judge must consider all relevant circumstances.
Generally, voluntary intoxication cannot be used to excuse a drunk driver who
had caused the death of a pedestrian, however there are some defences available
in some jurisdictions under certain conditions:
- involuntary intoxication is not
considered as evidence of intention, but in some jurisdictions it may be given
weight when other aspects of intent are in dispute;
-
provocation;
- diminished responsibility (not an
excuse);
- duress or necessity.
A voluntary intoxication defence
presents a potential for abuse. A prosecutor may claim that there is evidence
of voluntary intoxication but the judge does not have the power to exclude it
because of the potential for abuse. Consequently, the defence may not be used
in the case. In Australia, intoxication has been held to be a partial defence
on occasions, including criminal negligence and infanticide which refers to
murder of a child below 1 year.
In Chu Kheng Lim v Minister
for Immigration,[11] the High Court held the common law
defence of intoxication to be inapplicable on facts. The court considered two
propositions:
The first is that a person who
voluntarily consumes an intoxicating substance thereby intentionally causes his
own intoxication and thus renders himself incapable of forming either an intent
or a state of mind essential to constitute any crime against [Criminal Code s.
5.6].
The second is that for the conduct of
a person to be voluntary it is not essential that the person forms an
intention. It is enough so long as he voluntarily performs the acts which give
rise to his intoxication and hence render him incapable of forming an intent or
a state of mind required for the commission of any crime against [Criminal Code
s. 5.6].
In the recent case Suraj
Jagannath Jadav vs. the State of Maharashtra,[12] the accused splashed his wife in
kerosene and tried to lit a matchstick and set her ablaze as she tried to flee
the house. The accused claimed in his defence that he was intoxicated and
hadn't intended to kill his wife.
The court ruled that in order to
establish whether the accused has the necessary intention for the crime or not,
other facts must be proven as well as the proof of the accused's intoxication,
which renders him incapable of forming that intention.
An alcoholic belief may be used as a
defence in certain circumstances. In Jaggard v. Dickinson [1980, 1981],[13] the accused was given the
opportunity to appeal their conviction for malicious or careless criminal
property damage. Due to her own deliberate intoxication, the accused
incorrectly but honestly believed that she was destroying a friend's property
and that the friend would have approved of her actions. According to “Section
5(3) of the Criminal Damage Act of 1971”,[14] if the belief is honestly held, it
is irrelevant whether the belief is justified or not in allowing the damage of
property.
Section 85 and 86 of IPC
It is evident from a combined reading
of “sections 85 and 86 of the Indian Penal Code” that provision 86 constitutes
an exception to the general norm set forth in section 85. Section 86 of IPC
says that “Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one
who is intoxicated.—In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done
with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of
intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge
as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which
intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his
will.” The laws are very explicit that even if the accused was so inebriated
that “he was unable to comprehend the nature and ramifications of his act or
that it was illegal, the act committed while under the effect of voluntary
intoxication would still be illegal. Section 86 exclusively deals with offences
requiring a specific knowledge or intention for their commission,” whereas
Section 85 deals with all types of offences. Section 86 of IPC says that
However, both portions call for the same level of intoxication. If the accused
is not sufficiently intoxicated to be unable to comprehend the nature and repercussions
of his actions or that his behavior is unlawful, he will not be eligible for
the benefit of the defence of intoxication.
In the case of Shankar Jaiwara
v State of West Bengal[15] it was held that the accused
travelled some distance to the victim's home while hiding the weapon and
wearing clothing indicated that he was aware of his actions and was capable of
comprehending their nature and effects. He was therefore determined to be
ineligible for the benefit of the drunkenness defence.
INTOXICATION IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
Below is a situation regarding
intoxication. We will analyse it and compare it with the defence used in
different countries.
“The
defendant pled guilty and said he was intoxicated when the crime occurred. The
judge reduced his sentence from murder to manslaughter.”
In Portugal, a defendant may plead that they
were intoxicated at the time of the crime and that they should not therefore be
held accountable. If the case goes to trial, then “the prosecution must prove
beyond reasonable doubt that it was not a case of intoxication.”
In Scotland, a person cannot use intoxication as
an excuse for committing a crime. However, a person can ask for their sentence
to be reduced if their level of intoxication significantly reduces their culpability
for an offence. This is under the ‘Diminished Responsibility’ rule.
In England and Wales, a
defence of intoxication can be used two ways:
England and Wales law distinguishes
between partial and complete defences. This means that if you are found guilty
after claiming intoxication, you could still be sentenced to a prison term in
addition to your fine.
In Canada, the defence of intoxication may be
used for most criminal /undefined offences.
CONCLUSION
From the above analysis we can draw a
conclusion that The Indian Penal Code addressed intoxication as one of the
general exceptions. Numerous instances demonstrate that, even when intoxication
is used as a defence, “a person cannot be freed from serious and dangerous
criminal offences.” The burden of proof rests with the accuser. The main issue
with determining the level of intoxication that characterizes an offender who
has committed a crime is that many offenders lack mens rea, one of the
essential elements of criminal guilt can be clearly understood by the case laws
and judgements mentioned.
We can conclude that intoxication as
a defence can only be taken to an extent. Any unlawful act committed after
voluntary intoxication is liable as if he had done that “act with the same
knowledge he would have if he had not been intoxicated whereas if a person was
involuntarily intoxicated then it would be considered as manslaughter.”
The conversion of legal and
philosophical ideas into practical jurisprudence is necessary for the judgement
of legal guilt or liability. When evaluating potential “legal defences,” case
law offers useful advice which is demonstrated in the above research. A
functional understanding of the relationship between intoxication and intention
is therefore helpful, in addition to the well-established mental state defences
of insanity and reduced responsibility.
[1] 13 P.S.A PILLAI,
CRIMINAL LAW 56, 2017
[5] Jerome Hall,
General Principles of Criminal Law, New Jersey, The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd.,2005
[6] KEITER APPELLATE
LAW,https://www.californiaappellateattorney.com/keiter-appellate-law-wins-at-the-california-supreme-court/ (last visited 31st October, 2022)
Article Information
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INTOXICATION AS A DEFENCE IN IPC,1860
Authors: PRAKRUTHI BALLA, STA VYSHNA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/02/23
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.