Open Access Research Article
SCOPE OF INTOXICATION UNDER SECTION 85 AND 86 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Published Paper
Article Details
SCOPE OF INTOXICATION UNDER SECTION
85 AND 86 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
AUTHORED BY - SHUBHANG IGNATIUS
FRANCIS
ABSTRACT
Focusing on
Sections 85 and 86 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the abstract examines the
complicated topography of drunkenness as a defence in the Indian criminal
justice system. When someone violates the law while being of unsound mind,
Section 85 deals with the situation and releases the offender from criminal
responsibility if they were unable to understand the nature or wrongness of
their conduct owing to their mental condition. Consistent application is
difficult due to the unclear definition of "unsound mind" and the
threshold for impairment. The crimes requiring particular knowledge or purpose
that are committed by drunk people are covered under Section 86. According to
this, the accused is handled as if they never had the essential purpose or
knowledge if they are too drunk to develop them, acknowledging the
instantaneous transformation. of mental states due to intoxication. The
abstract examines the difference between involuntary and voluntary drunkenness,
highlighting how the law views both differently, creating difficulties in
assessing the accused's mental state and degree of responsibility. It further
notes that Sections 85 and 86 only apply to crimes requiring particular
knowledge or purpose, creating a loophole in circumstances involving acts with
generic intent. In conclusion, even if Sections 85 and 86 offer a procedure to
handle situations involving mental impairments, there remain important
problems. There are a number of issues with this defence, such as the fact that
it may only be used in particular offences and that there is no clear
definition of what constitutes drunkenness. To achieve the correct balance
between accountability and recognising real disability within the Indian
criminal justice system, these issues call for additional investigation and
potential adjustments.
KEYWORDS:
Intoxication, IPC, Mental Capacity, Incapacity
Introduction
Lord
Denning defined intoxication as a defence in the case of Attorney General
Northern Ireland v Gallagher[1]and
looked into the lack of means read due to drinking . which focuses on the legal
maxim “Actus nisi mens sit rea non-factum” no wrongful act must be accompanied
by a legal punishment if done with no actual intention to commit it. This
article is a clear definition of defense available to individuals if committed
a crime with actual no knowledge or intention to commit a crime. This article
provides a way in which the defense is used in Indian context and the
understanding of the mental state of the person involved and the type of crime
these persons get involved.
Indian
criminal law provides defense available under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 under
different levels of mental understanding of a person, which includes
intoxication as an available defense. This article provides the analysation of
section 84, 85, and 86 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The term Insanity and
Intoxication are not clearly defined and has a broad understanding which has a
varying degree of “intoxication” and “unsoundness of mind”.
Indian
law provides various conditions that constitute exceptions under this section;
Inability of a person to understand a situation, not being able to know the
consequences of a crime, and intoxication done involuntarily. Intoxication can
happen when substances like narcotics, marijuana, alcohol, sedatives, etc.
This
article expands a view what is the mental state of a person and the
consequences when intoxicated and the ability the distinguishing what is right
and wrong. This article further provides the role of IPC in determining the
liability of such individuals according to different levels of intoxication.
Further
this article tries to identify the lacunae in the law that provides defense and
also provides a clear understanding of mens rea and actus reus in committing an
offense and to what extent the law provides a defense of sections 85 and 86 of
the IPC,1860 and the importance and who
actually can avail the defense under it.
CHAPTER
1
Literature Review
1. Pratik
Maitra, Critical Analysis of Intoxication as a Defence in IPC 1860, 2 Jus
Corpus L.J. 734 (2022).
The abstract have not included the ways of
intoxication and in what all ways can a person get intoxicated such as alcohol, marijuana,
hallucinogens, sedatives, and other narcotic drugs.
2. Vidhi Raj,
Does Insanity Come within the Ambit of Unsoundness of Mind?: An Analysis of
Section 84 IPC, 1860, 4 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL Rsch. 1 (2022-2023).
This paper
on mental element did not specify the Mens rea or mental state
or purpose at the time of a crime, which the actions that made
up the offence. When taken as a whole, they establish the foundation for
criminal culpability and ensure accountability for both deeds and mental state.
This distinction between intentional and accidental acts, while actus
reus of criminal behaviour in determining responsibility. which is
essential that these factors interact in order to determine guilt or innocence
was not clearly identified in the paper which can be used General defense
.
3.
Debashree Saikia, Insanity Defense in Criminal
Law in India, 1 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 24 (2018).
The
legal distinguishing between deliberate and involuntary
drunkenness and treats them differently, even though it acknowledges the
momentary transformation of one's mental state brought on by intoxication.
Differentiating between these two types of drunkenness and judging the
accused's level of responsibility are the difficult tasks. This area of
criminal law poses issues on what constitutes drunkenness and how to consistently,
fairly, and justly use this defence. As a result, maintaining the proper
balance between holding people accountable and identifying real disability is
still a difficult task for the judicial system.
4.
Kshitij Nair, A Critical Analysis of Defence
of Insanity under IPC, 4 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL Rsch. 1 (2022-2023).
In this
paper the framework of criminal law, and the severity of mental
illness is conspicuously lacking. Although the idea of a mental condition is
acknowledged by the legal system as a viable defence, it frequently lacks the
specificity to take into consideration the different levels of impairment. This
omission raises significant concerns regarding the equitable treatment of
people with varying degrees of mental illness when determining their criminal
responsibility. It is critical to remember that not all instances of mental
illness are the same, and the lack of a nuanced approach in the legal system
can result in inconsistent results and even unfair treatment. To provide a more
equal and just system of justice, it is crucial to close the identification gap
between the different levels of mental illness under criminal law.
Research Objective
The
research explores the various degrees of insanity and intoxication and seeks to
explain how these terms are used within the legal system .Focuses on the maxim
'Actus
nisi mens sit rea non-factum' that states that those who conduct crimes
do so despite having no real knowledge of or desire to do so are entitled to a
defence. This study's main objective is to examine the use of this defence in
Indian law, notably Sections 84, 85, and 86 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
which deal with mental conditions, drunkenness, and criminal responsibility.
The
research explores the various degrees of insanity and intoxication and seeks to
explain how these terms are used within the legal system .Focuses on the maxim
It will
also look at the circumstances that constitute exclusions from criminal
accountability, including incapacity to understand a situation, ignorance of
the repercussions of a crime, and involuntary drunkenness brought on by drugs
such sedatives, alcohol, marijuana, and opioids. The research also aims to
pinpoint any legal gaps and restrictions, as well as how they affect the
notions of mens rea and actus reus in criminal offences. Additionally, the
research will look at the requirements for anyone seeking the protections
afforded by Sections 85 and 86 of the IPC, 1860, as well as the usefulness of
these provisions in establishing a fair and just judicial system.
Research Methodology
The
research explores the various degrees of insanity and intoxication and seeks to
explain how these terms are used within the legal system .Focuses on the maxim
A doctrinal
method was used in the pursuit of the indicated research objectives to explore
the jurisprudential aspect of the subject matter, contextualised within the
current legal environment. Examining key case law and perceptive opinions
helped to facilitate our study. All of the gathered data underwent rigorous
descriptive and analytical examination in the process of writing this essay.
The references used for this project came from a wide range of sources,
including books by renowned legal academics, trustworthy periodicals,
perceptive blogs, and research papers.
Research Questions
1. What are
the various legal statutes that cover crimes committed intoxicated
individuals ?
2. Can a lack
of mens rea be attributed to intoxication?
3. What
factors are taken into account while determining whether drunkenness is
voluntary or involuntary?
CHAPTER 2
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
Interpretation of section 84 IPC, 1860
Legal
precedents show that the phrase "unsoundness of mind" has constantly
been used to refer to insanity in legal discourse. In a notable Supreme Court
decision, Bapum Raj Singh v. State of Rajasthan[2],
it was emphasised that the term "insanity" spans a range of mental
diseases, suggesting that not everyone with a mental illness is automatically
exempt from criminal responsibility. Consequently, a key difference between
medical and legal insanity is made. The legal system has repeatedly argued that
the legal definition of insanity, rather than the medical one, is what matters
most to the law. Several legal judgements have also reaffirmed this point of
view. Medical insanity is the term used to describe situations where there are
strong medical indicators that a person has a mental illness. However, for the
specific intent of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the burden of
proof shifts to the defence to show that the offender's cognitive abilities
were compromised to the point that they prevented them from understanding the
nature of their actions at the time of the offence.
The Indian
Penal Code (IPC) Section 84's eligibility requirements were clarified by the
court in the Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand[3]
lawsuit. The court ruled that some traits, such as arrogance, strange
behaviour, or sporadic bouts of insanity, do not, by themselves, provide
sufficient grounds to invoke Section 84 of the IPC's provisions. This judgement
serves as an authoritative interpretation of the legislation, highlighting the
need for a more thorough and precise proof of cognitive impairment in order to
support the use of Section 84 within the context of the IPC.
Burden of proof
The burden
of proof in cases of insanity rests with the accused. As per Surendra
Mishra v. State of Jharkhand[4],
the court decision made it clear that while the burden of proof is
with the accused, they are not required to prove their case beyond a reasonable
doubt. Instead, the accused just needs to show that their case has the
advantage of the doubt . This legal view emphasises the significance of a
more balanced approach in deciding the burden of proof in situations where
insanity is invoked as a defence, ensuring that the accused is not unfairly
burdened with an unreasonably high evidentiary standard.
Differences between Insanity and Intoxication
The
differences between intoxication and insanity under Section 84
of the legislation grants cases of insanity the same level of protection that
Section 85 does in cases of involuntary drunkenness. It is significant to note
that voluntary intoxication largely functions as a justification with regard to
the concept of "intention." In crimes that need the existence of
purpose in order to be committed, it thus serves as a full defence. Instances
when a crime just needs "knowledge" as opposed to
"intention," however, do not relieve a person from responsibility due
to voluntary intoxication.
Irresistible impulse" and "insanity"
The term
"irresistible impulse" describes a mental state in which a person
loses control over both their knowledge of their actions and their will to stop
them. It largely has an impact on someone's ability to control their emotions.
It is important to emphasise that the defence of overpowering impulse is not
accepted as acceptable under English law. Several instances, notably R v.
Haynes and R v. Burton[5],
have upheld this point of view. The unwillingness to embrace the irresistible
impulse defence stems from the worry that acknowledging it could make it harder
for people to practise self-control. Determining whether urges are indeed
irresistible also presents significant challenges.
It is
important to stress that Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not
recognise impulsive insanity or the notion of uncontrollable impulse as
legitimate defences. In contrast to cognitive abilities, impulsive insanity
largely impacts a person's will and emotions. An important legal decision in
the case of State of Kerala v. Ravi[6]
established that under Indian law, an accused cannot be exempted from criminal
liability solely on the basis of an irresistible impulse unless it can be
proven that such impulse was the result of mental impairment caused by Section
84 of the IPC. This stance emphasises how the defence of irrepressible impulse
is interpreted legally inside the Indian legal system and how it applies to
criminal situations.
The Court
issued a major ruling in the case of Ramedin v. State of Madhya Pradesh[7]
that made it clear that a claim of insanity under Section 84 of the Indian
Penal Code cannot be supported by just saying that a murder was done on an
uncontrollable whim. This decision emphasises the legal principle that the
insanity defence should not be used in criminal proceedings simply because the
defendant acted impulsively without being in a state of unsound mind as defined
in Section 84. It emphasises the requirement for a stronger, more concrete link
between the accused's mental condition and their acts when determining whether
the insanity defence is appropriate.
Conclusion
In
conclusion, Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with legal
insanity, distinct from medical insanity, and encompasses various mental
illnesses. It is crucial to emphasize that having a mental condition does not
automatically absolve one from criminal responsibility, as the burden of proof
lies with the accused to demonstrate their cognitive impairment. The legal
precedent set by cases like Bapum Raj Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Surendra
Mishra v. State of Jharkhand ensures a fair and balanced assessment of the
burden of proof in insanity cases.
Moreover,
the distinction between insanity and drunkenness, covered under Sections 84 and
85 of the IPC, grants similar levels of legal protection. Voluntary drunkenness
primarily acts as a defense concerning the concept of "intention" in
criminal cases. However, it does not necessarily absolve one of culpability in
cases that require only "knowledge."
The
concept of "irresistible impulse," recognized in English law, is not
accepted under Indian law, as shown in cases like R v. Haynes, R v. Burton,
State of Kerala v. Ravi, and Ramedin v. State of Madhya Pradesh. In Indian law,
an accused cannot be released from criminal responsibility solely based on an
irresistible impulse unless it can be linked to a mental impairment as defined
in Section 84. This legal stance underscores the need for a strong connection
between the accused's mental state and their actions for mounting an insanity
defense. Overall, these legal principles ensure a balanced and just approach to
cases involving mental illness and criminal responsibility in the Indian legal
system.
CHAPTER 3
Mental Capacity and intoxication as a defense
MEN REAS PART IN THE DEFENSE AGAINST INTOXICATION
Criminal
law provides a limited defence for intoxication, whether it was deliberate or
not. The level of drunkenness may affect
a person's capacity to develop the necessary Mens Rea, which is the mental
state or purpose required for the crime, when they commit a crime while under
the influence of alcohol or drugs.
In
general, the defence of involuntary intoxication is not viable if the accused
successfully forms the required mens rea while committing the offence. In the
case of R v. Kingston[8],
it was established that even if an accused person acts in a way that they would
not have done when sober as long as the mental element necessary for the
offence is shown, they can still be held guilty. This case serves as an example
of this concept.
In the
case of D.P.P v. Beard[9],
the defendant claimed that his drunkenness constituted a valid defence to
charges of raping and killing a thirteen-year-old girl. According to the
court's decision, an intoxication defence can only be utilised if the accused
was unable to create the mens rea.
Similar to
this, the court emphasised the requirement for strong proof of drunkenness and
the lack of mens rea in the case of Soolkal and Francis Mansingh v. The State [10].
An accused individual may contend that they lacked the required mens rea when a
crime is claimed to have been committed with specific purpose because they were
inebriated. But it's important to understand that even an inebriated intention
is still seen as an intention. In the case of R v. Sheehan and Moore[11],
two defendants were accused of killing a man by dousing him in petrol and
lighting him ablaze. This legal theory is demonstrated in this case.
In matters
requiring specific purpose, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to
show that the defendant lacked the necessary mens rea at the moment the crime
was committed. Even with the impact of alcohol into account, the prosecution is
responsible with determining the accused's real purpose. On the other hand, in
cases involving fundamental purpose, the sheer fact that someone is drunk out
of their own free will is sufficient proof that the required mens rea exists.
Intoxication as a defense section 85 and 86 IPC
Involuntary
drunkenness is defined legally under Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code of
1860. It stipulates that an act carried out by someone whose drunkenness was
brought on without their will shall not be regarded as an offence. This defence
is based on the claim that the offender was intoxicated and hence unable to
comprehend the nature of their conduct or that their actions were illegal or
morally repugnant. It is essential that the drug or component that caused the
intoxication was given to the individual against their will or against their
knowledge in order to qualify for this defence.
In order
to successfully employ this defence, the accused must demonstrate that a set of
precise requirements, or the "ingredients for Section 85," have been
satisfied. These standards comprise:
There
should be a person who can be identified who carried out the deed.It must be
impossible for the person in issue to understand the nature of the act.The
individual's drunkenness must be the primary cause of this lapse in
judgement.It was wrong for the substance or component to have been administered
to the person without their will or without their knowledge.
According
to Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860, crimes requiring a
certain level of purpose or knowledge can be committed by someone who is
voluntarily intoxicated. A person is judged to have the same amount of
knowledge as they would have had they been sober if they freely engage in an
activity while inebriated, unless the intoxicant was delivered to them without
their knowledge or against their choice. It is noteworthy that this section
distinguishes between knowledge and intent.
This
clause provides a legal presumption that, when sober, an individual would have
had the essential information but not necessarily the purpose in circumstances
involving offences where a specific intent is required. It is assumed that a
reasonable person would have desired those results if they were aware of the
anticipated outcomes of their conduct. However, when a person is drunk, the
connection between knowledge and intent is broken. As a result, this part of
the law demands that people can be held accountable even if they have the
sufficient information for the offence but lack the necessary intent.
This legal
rule specifies how to handle people who get intoxicated of their own free will
and then take activities that may be crimes, particularly where purpose or
knowledge is a key component of the crime. Instead than establishing a defence,
it offers a framework for figuring out guilt in such circumstances.
In
Venkappa Kannappa Chowdari v. State of Karnataka[12],
the defendant coerced his wife into taking money out of an account she had been
given as compensation for the terrible loss of their kid in a vehicle accident.
She refused to comply with this demand, which infuriated the accused, who then
committed a heinous deed by burning his wife on fire. Sadly, the victim's
injuries turned out to be lethal, resulting in her untimely death. The
defendant tried to use drunkenness as a defence against him throughout the
court case. However, because the drunkenness in question was voluntary, the
court rejected his petition. Because people are usually held accountable for
their conduct even when they are willingly inebriated, this case serves as an
example of how voluntary intoxication does not frequently constitute a
legitimate defence in criminal proceedings.
In all, if
someone can anticipate the results of their acts, the defence of drunkenness is
not valid. The Basudev v. State of Pepsu [13]case,
in which the accused, a former military officer, and the dead attended a
village wedding, is a prominent example of how this concept is used. The dead
refused to give up a chair that the accused wanted to sit on, which led to a
fight. Intoxicated, the accused pulled out his handgun and shot the young man,
who tragically died as a result of the serious wounds he received. The
defendant claimed during the trial that his inebriation prevented him from
understanding the effects of his conduct. The offender had lived in the same
area and was allowed to stroll, thus he might have fairly predicted the results
of his actions, the court emphasised in rejecting this defence. He was
therefore adjudged to have committed murder.
Since
people participate in what is viewed as risky behaviour by choosing to consume
alcohol while being aware of the hazards, voluntary drunkenness is not accepted
as a defence. It is important to note that Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) can only be used as a defence for offences done with the purpose to cause
harm to others and not for offences committed with only awareness of the
repercussions. The legal ramifications of actions motivated by various mental
states are shaped by this section's clear difference between the two.
Misuse of intoxication as a general defense
There has
been a great deal of discussion and criticism around the legal responsibility
of those who commit crimes when impaired by intoxicants. The debate over
whether to judge the crime from the community's objective viewpoint or the
offender's subjective one is at the heart of this discussion. In addition, moral
conundrums arise, such as whether sympathy should be shown to a drunken
offender and, if so, if it should come at the price of the innocent victim.
Crimes
that are dangerous and damaging are frequently committed when people who are
impaired by drugs or alcohol are involved in incidents. It is important to
stress that it is controversial to use drunkenness as a justification for
illegal behaviour in order to avoid accountability while blaming it completely
on alcohol or other drugs.
When the
criminal was inebriated when the crime was committed, the legal system permits
the prospect of a lesser sentence. This idea is demonstrated in the Rex v.
Pearson [14]case,
in which the accused brutally murdered his wife with a sharp weapon. He had no
other explanation for his behaviour but that he was drunk. This conveys a
crucial ethical and legal dilemma: to what degree does intoxication lessen a
person's responsibility for unlawful behavior? The legal system and society at
large are still trying to figure out how to balance the need to acknowledge the
role of intoxication in criminal behaviour with the need to hold people
accountable, especially when those actions cause harm and suffering to innocent
victims.
Recent law
changes mean that people will no longer be able to use intoxication as a
defence in situations where the crime committed is extremely severe and when
the natural consequences of the acts may be fairly predicted. This idea was
emphasised in the Babu Alias Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan[15]
case. Although it was determined that the accused's conduct were affected by
alcohol, the court found that this did not excuse him from the charge that he
was unaware of the likely repercussions of his violent behaviour. Due to the
heinousness of the alleged deed, the court thus dismissed his defence.
It is
considered that the current intoxication defence clause has fundamental flaws.
It does not clearly distinguish between offences with a fundamental intent and
those with a special aim in terms of mens rea, the mental component of a crime.
It is not acceptable to use intoxication as a defence since it does not
completely eliminate mens rea. merely crimes when the mental component is
completely eliminated should qualify for this defence; crimes where merely
inhibitions are lessened should not.
Intoxication
brought on by the deliberate ingestion of alcohol or drugs may be regarded as
voluntary if the user is fully aware of the substances' potential for
intoxication. However, if the accused person's intoxication results from a
scenario that increases their sensitivity to the drug's effects and is
unbeknownst to them, it will not be considered voluntary. These variables
demonstrate the dynamic character of the law's approach to using drunkenness as
a defence, which aims to achieve a balance between personal accountability and
mitigating circumstances.
Intoxication and Foreseeability test
An
individual's liability for a specific offence is determined using the principle
of foreseeability. The possibility of losing control when using drugs or
alcohol is commonly acknowledged. A person acting recklessly and negligently
while fully aware of the possibility of losing control is someone who
purposefully consumes such substances while knowing the risks. Therefore, using
drugs that are known to have certain effects exposes a person to the possible
liability of intentional usage. One might have avoided drinking or using drugs,
if appropriate, if they did not want to lose control.
It's
crucial to keep in mind that the loss of control is a gradual process that
doesn't always come without symptoms. The topic gets more divisive when it
comes to incidents of unintended drunkenness, though. The core of the problem
rests in the person's intention, their conscious decision to act in a way that
might result in losing control, as well as their understanding of the likely
repercussions. This calls into question whether people should be held
accountable for decisions made knowing full well the consequences of their
conduct. It will be challenging for those who continue to drink a drink that
has been tainted while showing signs of drunkenness to use the intoxication
defence. This is due to the fact that it is reasonable to assume that they are
aware of the risks and outcomes that may result. The intoxication defence will
not apply if a person stops drinking after noticing the symptoms and realising
that their drink contains an unidentified drug and any subsequent activities
that endanger both themselves and others will not be covered by this defence.
The
statutory basis for this is based on the idea that the law prioritises the
preservation of the public interest over the interests of a person who, via
deliberate and careless behaviour, jeopardises both the safety and well-being
of the public and their own. This emphasises the value of acting responsibly
and sensibly, as well as the potential repercussions of someone purposefully
putting himself and others in danger.
Conclusion and suggestion
In fact,
one may say that violence in the community is significantly influenced by
intoxication. A person is either declared innocent or guilty in the area of
criminal law depending on the finding of purpose, which is a fundamental
component. Therefore, it is crucial to think about whether being intoxicated
may be associated with having poor mental capacity. If this were the case, it
may seriously harm society because of the possibility that wrongdoers would use
drunkenness as a defence against punishment. In order to fully understand this
complicated topic, it is necessary to examine it through the prism of many case
laws, commentary, and elements like forensic toxicology, circumstantial
evidence, the accused's intent, and other mitigating circumstances.
The judge
has a responsibility to implement Sections 85 and 86 of the legislation
carefully, taking into account all pertinent factors. In situations involving
drunkenness, determining guilt should be a complex and informed process that
takes into consideration the whole range of evidence and circumstances in order
to guarantee that justice is done and the interests of society are properly
preserved.
The
general exceptions of the Indian Penal Code do not provide a particularly
strong defence for drunkenness. It does not exonerate the accused of guilt even
if it is mentioned; at most, it can be used as a mitigating element in
sentence. There may be a solid foundation for defence in circumstances of
involuntary intoxication, as opposed to cases where the intoxicant was consumed
voluntarily. This is so because mens rea, or the mental condition of being
inebriated, might still exist. Voluntary drunkenness does not absolve the
accused of culpability; rather, it suggests that the accused is assumed to be
as conscious as if they were sober.
To
determine if there is legal responsibility and whether the results of one's
acts were predictable, the foreseeability test is frequently used. Even in
circumstances of involuntary drunkenness, people may be held accountable,
especially if the offence in question is extremely serious.
The
defence of drunkenness is complex and difficult in practise, even if it may
appear simple in principle, it becomes clear when Sections 85 and 86 of the
Indian Penal Code are taken into account combined. The contrast between general
intent and specific purpose offences relating to drunkenness should be made
apparent in the provision to improve legal clarity. Making this distinction
would make it easier to use this defence. Any change in this area should work
to dispel the myth that illegal behaviour may be excused on the basis of
drunkenness. Additionally, it should make sure that the public's interests are
protected from those who are inebriated and do careless or rash acts.
BIBIOGRAPHY
Case laws
1
Attorney General Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963]
AC 349
2
Bapu Gajraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 June,
2007
3
Surendra
Mishra vs State Of Jharkhand on 6 January, 2011,
4
R v. Haynes and R v. Burton (1863) IFF 838
5
State of
Kerala v Ravi on 02 November 1977
6
Ramanand
Ramnath vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 April, 1996,
7
R v Kingston [1994] 3 WLR 519
8
D.P.P v Beard [1920] AC 479
9
Soolkal & Francis Mansingh v The State (Trinidad
And Tobago) [1999] UKPC 37
10 R v Sheehan
and Moore [1975] 60 Cr App R 308
11 Venkappa
Kannappa Chowdari vs State Of Karnataka on 29 June, 1995,
12 Basdev vs
The State Of Pepsu on 17 April, 1956
13 Rex v
Pearson [1983] 152 [CLR] 254
14 Bablu @
Mubarik Hussain à ... vs State Of Rajasthan à Respondent on 12 December, 2006,
Books referred
1
PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law
2
Ratan law & Dhirajlal, The Law of Indian Evidence
Referred Articles
1
Pratik Maitra, Critical Analysis of Intoxication as a
Defence in IPC 1860, 2 Jus Corpus L.J. 734 (2022).
2
Vidhi Raj, Does Insanity Come within the Ambit of
Unsoundness of Mind?: An Analysis of Section 84 IPC, 1860, 4 INDIAN J.L. &
LEGAL Rsch. 1 (2022-2023).
3
Debashree Saikia, Insanity Defense in Criminal Law in
India, 1 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 24 (2018).
4
Kshitij Nair, A Critical Analysis of Defence of
Insanity under IPC, 4 INDIAN J.L. & LEGAL Rsch. 1 (2022-2023).
Websites
2. https://indiankanoon.org/
Article Information
SCOPE OF INTOXICATION UNDER SECTION 85 AND 86 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Authors: SHUBHANG IGNATIUS FRANCIS
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/11/03
- 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.