|
Statement Of Problem
What is the nature and scope of intoxication under Section 85 and
Section 86 of Indian Penal Code?
Introduction
The topic that I have selected falls under the category of
defenses. In certain instances due to circumstances or other
reasons that are beyond an individual’s control he indulges in
criminal behavior. This also forms an integral part of the law
because as it is imperative to punish the guilty, not even a
single innocent man must be convicted. The defenses have been
specially formulated so that they are able to meet every
circumstance. Though a defense does not rescue an individual from
liability totally, it does reduce the severity of his punishment
for he can be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder rather than murder. Intoxication is one such defense.
I will start with dealing with
the origin of the concept, meaning the legal stand on the issue as
it has been. As the basic doctrine has been laid down in the
British cases, I will deal with the British aspect first. The
project will be divided in two sections, one that will deal with
the British perspective and the other that will deal with the
Indian perspective. Intoxication is codified in section 85 and 86
of the Indian penal code.
I will be dealing with
intoxication and its subsidiary aspects. Criminal law can be
broadly segregated to a section dealing with offences and another
one dealing with defenses. The offences committed constitute that
section of criminal law in which the individual actively commits a
crime. The very core aspect of this section is that the criminal
must have the intention or mens rea to commit the crime. Criminal
law, unlike its contemporary, civil law lays great emphasis on the
intention of an individual.
Both the sections of my project will deal with the legal stand on
the voluntary as well as the involuntary intoxication. I will deal
minutely with both the grounds and after expounding the legal
stand on both the sides will sum up with a critical analysis and
comparison of the law in the two countries.
The
British Perspective
Voluntary Intoxication
Even though voluntary intoxication means that someone has consumed
intoxicating substances with their own free will, he may still
have a defense to the offence with which he is charged. The intent
in case of a crime is very important and even though a person
maybe voluntarily intoxicated, the very fact that he is unable to
form the required intent works in his favor. The severity of the
punishment is reduced due to this defense; for instance, an
individual will be punished for the crime of manslaughter rather
than the more serious crime of murder. A crime requiring specific
intent may be reduced to one requiring basic intent. An intoxicant
does not have any separate ‘class’ but it refers to any substance,
which has an effect on the consciousness or the decision-making
capacity of a person.
What amounts to a state of
intoxication?
It was in DPP v Beard that the rule
for what amounts to a state of intoxication was laid down. Lord
Birkenhead: where a specific
intent is a specific element in the offence, evidence of a state
of drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an
intent should be taken into consideration in order to determine
whether he had in fact formed the necessary intent to constitute
the particular crime. Where a specific intent is necessary, if a
man is able to prove that he was so intoxicated that he was unable
to form the intent, he cannot be convicted of that particular
offence.
Basic
Intent/ Specific Intent Dichotomy
The rule was laid down by lord Simon of Glaisdale. However he
laid down a very complicated rule. To sum it up briefly and
simply, the rule provides that some offences do not require a
specific intent or motive. Even a basic intent of recklessness or
negligence would be sufficient in some crimes. For instance, in
case of manslaughter no specific intent is required.
The
Rationale Behind The Defence Of Intoxication
The laws in the early nineteenth century concerning intoxication
were very stringent. In fact, according to a statement made by
Earl of Birkenhead, voluntary intoxication was considered an
aggravation rather than a defence. If a person was consuming
alcohol, knowing fully well that it would impair his ability to
think clearly, then he will be situated in no better condition
than a sober man in the judgment of his criminal conduct.
Thankfully, the rule has been
mercifully relaxed and a person’s punishment, though cannot be
eradicated completely, can be reduced in severity. Further
illustrations can be provided with the help of case studies.
Case
Laws
R v Lipman
Facts: Both the defendant as well as the victim was addicted to
drugs, and on the eve of sixteenth September 1967, both took a
quantity of a drug known as LSD. Early in the morning of
eighteenth September, the defendant, who is a resident of U.S.A,
booked out of his hotel and left the country. The next day, the
landlord of the victim found her dead in her room. She had been
struck on the head severely and the cause of death had been
suffocation due to a sheet that had been crammed in her mouth. The
defendant, when he was charged with his crime said that the drug
had made him imagine that he was in the center of the Earth
fighting snakes and in that state of mind he had killed the victim
Judgment: the judgment in this
case was that since for a charge of manslaughter, no specific
intent is required, hence in this case self-induced intoxication
will not serve as a defence. Acquittal is not possible, and a
charge of manslaughter was inevitable.
Reasoning: the defendant
cannot be charged with murder because he had no intention to cause
any sort of grievous bodily harm, and without the necessary mens
rea, he cannot be convicted of murder. On the other hand, in case
of a charge of manslaughter, there is no specific intention
required, so in the present case that charge can be easily made.
All crimes do not require a particular motive and they provide
punishment even in the case of negligence or reckless conduct. In
this case the conduct was clearly reckless for the defendant was
aware that it was a drug and that it would deprive him of his
senses.
DPP. v
Majewski
Facts: in this case, Robert Stephan Majewski appeals against his
conviction on seventh November 1973 when under the influence of
drugs he had made three attempts of assault causing bodily harm
and threatened a constable who was on duty.
Judgment:
in this case, the
judges came to the conclusion that in a case of assault, no
specific intention is required and the defendant is guilty as
charged.
Reasoning:
the reasoning that
I have provided is of three judges.
Lord Elwyn Jones LC: According to Lord Elwyn Jones, voluntary
intoxication has always been a factor prevalent in crimes such as
assault but the rate of self-induced intoxication has escalated
alarmingly. The courts, or rather the judges in Britain between
crimes requiring basic intent and specific intent have introduced
a dichotomy. Hence, what we actually have to decode is what is the
mental element required in a case of assault.
He has quoted Lord Simon of
Glaisdale5 - I take assault as an example of a crime of basic
intent where the consequence is very closely connected with the
act. The actus reus of assault is an act which causes another
person to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. The mens rea
further corresponds. He further elucidated that what the
prosecution in the present case had to prove was that the accused
foresaw his act would cause some kind of apprehension to the
defendant, or he was reckless with his act. In case of assault,
not only the foresight, but the prevalence of the recklessness
also constitutes the mens rea.
There is still heated debate
as to what extent it is right to let a person goes free because he
is on a ‘trip’ due to drugs. Under the early law of England as it
prevailed in the nineteenth century, one could never use voluntary
manslaughter as a defence. This view propagated that any person
who consciously destroys his ability to think reasonably cannot
use it as a defence, rather it is an aggravation. However, now
this severity has been tempered, from 1819 onwards to as it stands
today. In case of an offence requiring basic intent, it is not
sufficient for a person to claim that he was intoxicated.
Lord Salmon: He admits that it
seems rather arbitrary to excuse one form of intention, while
another form in condemned. This however is the most reasonable
rule because it is neither too strict nor too lax. Neither part of
the rule can be removed without making the rule inconsistent as a
whole. The rule will lose its integrity if this is done and will
reach one of the extremes if this is done. As we are well aware it
is very difficult to apply absolute logic in affairs that deal
with human nature because human nature never follows absolute
logic. If a person were to be redeemed from punishment merely
because he was drunk, the effect on the morale of the society
would have been disastrous. Hence when a person does what Lipman
does he should not be allowed to go free, for the simple reason
that this would make the common man regard the law with contempt.
He should not be punished for the crime as a sober man would be,
but he still deserves some form of punishment.
Lord Russell of Killowen:
There are two extreme views that are prevalent. Some people
believe that the law should regress back to what it had been in
the early nineteenth century. At that time voluntary intoxication
was considered an aggravation rather than a defence. There are
others who take a contrary view and say that a man who is
intoxicated cannot be considered guilty, because he is incapable
of forming an intention. This will be considered technically
correct, for a crime does require the element of mens rea, but it
will never appeal to a man who has been beaten up by a drunken
goon.
Is
Voluntary Consumption Per Se Reckless All The Time?
R v Hardie
Facts: Shortly after nine fifteen at night on second January 1982,
fire broke out in a wardrobe in the bedroom of the ground floor
flat at 55 Bassingham Road, London Sw10.
At that time, Mrs. Jeannette Hardie, with whom the appellant had
been residing, occupied the flat. Shortly before the above stated
date, second January, Mrs. Jeannette had requested the appellant
to leave because their relationship had broken down. He did not
wish to do so at all, but he reluctantly packed his baggage on the
morning of second January. At lunchtime, the appellant discovered
two bottles in a cabinet, one of which contained valium. The
appellant claimed that he had never taken valium before, and he
was very distressed around twelve in the afternoon and took it to
calm his nerves. He had taken about four tablets after that and
Mrs. Hardie had said that they would not harm him because they had
expired. Thereafter he had gone to the bedroom and it was very
evident that he must have started the fire because there was
nobody else in that room. Te appellant claimed that it was due to
the effect of the Valium and he did not remember anything.
Judgment: The judge directed
the jury in effect that as the Valium was voluntarily
self-administered, it could not serve as a defence.
Reasoning: I will expound the
reasoning of Judge Parker because he has pointed out some very
important criticisms in this judgment. The authority on which the
judgment was based was R v Caldwell, stated that intoxication,
when it is self-induced can only serve as a defence when a charge
is one of specific intent. In this case however, the charge also
included recklessness. In this case Parker ponders whether the
taking of Valium in the circumstances that it was can be termed as
self-induced.
The court has dealt with two
parallel cases; R v Majewski was a case of intoxication due to
the consumption of alcohol under the influence of non-medically
prescribed drugs while R v Caldwell was a case of plain and
simple drunkenness. Both were considered voluntary intoxication.
In this case, Judge Parker is not satisfied with the judgment
because Valium is not a drug, which causes any kind of aggressive
or reckless conduct under normal circumstances. Here, the
appellant cannot fall in the same category as the others.
Involuntary Intoxication
According to DPP v Majewski, the case that I have already dealt
with previously, even in case of a crime requiring basic intent,
one can claim involuntary intoxication as a defence depending upon
the facts of a particular case. In case of a situation of
automation, the party would not be blamed at all. For instance, if
some third party mixes LSD in one person’s food and that person
causes harm under the influence of that LSD, the third person that
has mixed the LSD is entirely to blame. If an individual has to
escape from a crime which requires a specific intent it will be
very easy because the principle has been clearly laid down in
DPP
v Majewski, but if he has to escape from a crime of basic intent
he will have to rely on both DPP v Majewski as well as
R v Hardie
Mistake Regarding Nature Of Subsatnce Consumed
R v Allen
Facts: The accused was convicted of indecent assault. He defended
himself by saying that he was so drunk at that time that he had
been unable to comprehend what he had been doing. He had been
given a drink by a friend in a public house, and had been later
offered wine. He had not realized that the wine had high alcohol
content, and the accused had consumed it without being aware of
that fact. It was in that state of mind that the accused had
committed assault.
Judgment: The judge in this
case held that involuntary intoxication couldn’t serve as a
defence in a crime of the nature that the accused had committed.
Reasoning: In this case, there
is nothing to prove that the intoxication was involuntary; for the
accused had consumed the alcohol with his friend, and it seemed
that he had done so willingly enough. Moreover the argument that
was given by the accused was that he was not aware of the alcohol
content of the wine that he had drunk and it had a much higher
content than he had expected. He cannot be absolved from liability
on this basis.
Involuntary Consumption Of Intoxicants Falling Short Of
Intoxication
R v Kingston
Facts: The facts are very simple. The respondent was in dispute
over business matters with a couple named Foreman, who employed
Penn to obtain damaging information which they could use against
the respondent, who was a homosexual with Pedophiliac tendencies.
As part of the plan Penn invited the youth to his room. According
to the evidence that the youth gave, he remembered nothing between
a time when he was sitting on the bed, still in Penn’s room, the
following morning. It was the case for the prosecution, which the
jury by their second verdict must have accepted, that the boy fell
asleep due to a drug administration. The respondent committed
gross sexual acts with the boy, and Penn took photographs as it
had been planned.
Judgment: In this case the
accused was charged as guilty because he was not intoxicated
enough not to have formed the required intent, even though the
intoxication is of an involuntary nature.
Reasoning: The first ground of
defence that was adopted was that the accused lacked the required
moral element, because the law provides that even though an act is
intentional, the intent rises out of circumstances, which are
beyond the control of the accused. When he is not to be blamed the
necessary mens rea is not present. However, this is a lacuna in
the law because it has been strongly condemned. The more sensible
approach is that crime consists of an act or an omission.
In this case, such conduct was present; hence the argument of
absence of moral fault cannot be considered. The second defence,
which was adopted by the accused, was that since the intoxication
was of an involuntary nature, he could not be considered guilty.
However, this defence can also be done away with easily because as
well because we are already well aware of the basic intent and
specific intent dichotomy. If the Majewski case is considered,
then the crux of the matter would be that if an individual is
intoxicated to such an extent that he is unable to form the intent
required for the crime then he will be acquitted. Alternatively,
if he is fully capable of forming the required intent then he
cannot even appeal that he was intoxication as a defence.
If a new line of defence was
to be recognized, it will add a lot of discrepancies to the
existing law. The defence maybe eventually able to come to terms
with the practical conditions, but that will take a long period of
time and a lot of understanding as well as amendments. Though it
is very necessary for the law to adapt itself to the social
conditions, yet it is also necessary that it does not lose its
realism and deprive the common man of justice.
The
Dutch Courage Rule
As we are already well aware, alcohol has already been associated
with crimes of the most heinous nature. Men consume alcohol not
only to get an artificial high, but also to get what is popularly
known as a ‘kick’, or to go on a ‘trip’ of their own. A lot of
times men resort to alcohol due to depression, or when somebody
has hurt his or her frail egos. When an individual is depressed or
nervous he takes alcohol either to soothe his nerves, or he does
so to escape from reality into a world of oblivion where he can
escape from his pain or a problem that is causing him depression.
In that state of mind he is far from reality and he imagines
himself dealing with his problem very bravely and overcoming it.
This kind of drinking puts an individual into a stupor. There is
also a third category of drinkers that needs to be considered.
Sometimes an individual takes to drink to provide him with
courage. Drinking causes an individual to become aggressive and
lose his sense of self-restraint. It deprives him of his sense of
reason to such an extent that he may not even realize that what he
is doing is against the law. He may plan or decide what he has to
do before he starts drinking, and he may use the drink to provide
him with the ‘Dutch courage’ to commit the deed.
Ac For Northern Ireland v
Gallagher
Facts: The accused had a grievance against his wife. She had
obtained a maintenance order against him and she had got him
detained in a mental hospital. The husband decided to kill his
wife, and hence having made up his mind, he purchased a knife and
a bottle of whiskey to acquire the courage to commit the deed or
to be able to put his conscience to rest after the deed had been
committed. He committed the deed and consumed much of the whiskey,
before or after the commission is yet to be ascertained.
Judgment: The accused was held
to be guilty as charged because he had formed the intention before
getting intoxicated.
Reasoning:
In this case, two
conflicting opinions have been expressed, one by the chief justice
and the other one by the M’Naghten rules. The object of the Chief
Justice was to emphasize on the state of mind of the accused
before the consumption of the whiskey, which in this case clearly
shows that he possessed the required mens rea for he had made up
his mind to kill his wife. But according to the M’Naghten rules,
the crucial time for the judging of the intent is the time of the
commission of the act.
In this case a further
complication is created due the accused being a psychopath. This
does not mean that he can avail himself of the defence of
insanity, but it can be possible that alcohol has the effect of
triggering off the disease. The most important discerning feature
of this case is that the accused had already made up his mind to
kill his wife, even before he had even touched alcohol. This is
far worse than the situation of a man who forms the necessary
intent after getting drunk. A brief summary of the general law and
its exceptions can be provided as follows:
The illustration of the
general principle of how drunkenness produces a defect of reason
is:
Drunkenness may impair a man’s
senses to think clearly to such an extent that he will not even be
aware of the consequences of his actions. He cannot use this as a
defense because by now everyone is very well aware of the effect
of alcohol and the fact that too much of alcohol is dangerous
2) He may lose his ability to distinguish between what is morally
right or wrong.
There are two prevalent
exceptions to the general rule:
If a man is charged with a crime that requires a specific intent
then he can plead intoxication as a defence. But, though this
defence will suffice in case of murder it will not extricate
liability in case of a charge of manslaughter.
Is a man brings on a disease of the mind due to drinking, such as
delirium; he can be excused from liability. Sometimes due to heavy
drinking individual contracts some form of disease and even in
this case he can be excused from liability.
In this case, none of the above stated exceptions can be applied
because the accused had already formed his intention and merely
used alcohol as a means to give him enough courage to commit the
deed. Merely because the man is a psychopath, he cannot be excused
from liability. The facts have made the situation in this case
very clear. The man formed the intent to kill his wife when he was
perfectly sober, and he cannot use alcohol as a pretext or
defence. It was self induced and purposely consumed, especially to
summon the necessary aggression and courage required to commit the
deed.
The
Indian Perspective
As is well known, the Indian Penal Code is the foundation for the
criminal law in India, and Section 85 and 86 deal with
intoxication.
Section
85: 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
the law: provided that the thing that intoxicated him was
administered to him without his will or against his knowledge.
To further elucidate, a person who is under the influence of
intoxicating substances cannot be charged of a crime if he was:
Incapable of knowing the
nature of the act.
That he was doing something in conflict with the laws of his
country.
The important clause to be considered in this section of our penal
code is that the intoxicating substance must be administered
against the will of the individual
Voluntary drunkenness, under
normal circumstances, cannot serve as an excuse for the commission
of a crime13. However, drunkenness does not make the accused
worse, because it does not worsen the nature of the crime
committed. Drunkenness can be compared to a situation of madness
for which the madman is to blame14. Though the accused is not able
to exercise restraint, which he would have under the normal
circumstances, he cannot be excused from his act. In England as
well, voluntary intoxication is not a very strong defence.
Nevertheless, voluntary
drunkenness can protect an individual in two cases:
There are some crimes which demand the explicit requirement of a
specific intent. In such cases, when the accused has had so much
to drink that he is unable to form the necessary intent, then he
cannot be blamed for the commission of the crime. The punishment
of the accused can be reduced due to this defence from murder to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We are all well aware
of the effects of alcohol on the human mind. Since time
immemorial, alcohol has been associated with crimes of the worst
possible kind, and we are all familiar with the deranged state of
an alcoholic. A case can be cited at this instance. In a case of
wife burning, the accused had consumed alcohol, and after having a
tiff with his wife, had set her on fire after pouring kerosene on
her. She had resisted the flames, and had tried to run away, upon
which he had grabbed her and set her aflame again. The way the law
deals with any criminal situation depends on the facts of a
particular case, and here the facts prove that the husband was not
intoxicated enough to be unaware of what he was doing and the fact
that he pulled the wife back and doused her with kerosene proves
this. Hence in this case the accused was convicted for murder.15
In some instances the mind of the individual becomes diseased due
to drinking, and the disease is to such an extent that he becomes
incapable of taking responsibility for his own acts or even
thinking clearly for that matter. The principle rests in the
M’Naughton rules that were relied upon in such a case. A common
example of a mental state caused due to excessive drinking is
‘delirium tremens’. If a man gets drunk due to the tricks or fraud
of another person, he will be excused.
The Penal code has cited two English cases to elucidate the point.
The first one is the famous case of DPP v Beard, in which the
accused ravished a girl who was thirteen years of age. While
raping her, he got so carried away that he placed his hand on her
throat and the other one on her mouth resulting in death due to
suffocation. The defence given was that the accused was that the
accused was so drunk that he was unable to comprehend the severity
of his act. The accused was convicted for murder, for the act due
to which she died, suffocation, was very different and independent
from the act of rape.
Section 86:
In cases where an act done is not an offence
unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who
does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be
dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if
he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated
him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his
will.
There is always certain guilty
knowledge or intention, which forms part of the definition of many
offences; this section deals specially to find solutions for such
cases. A person who is intoxicated is considered to have the same
level of knowledge as a person who is sober. Cases have to be
differently judged because some focus on the intent of the
individual while others focus on the knowledge that the individual
possesses. It must be borne in mind that though an intoxicated
person is credited with the same knowledge as a similar sane
person, this presumption cannot be made for his intent.
Drunkenness does not make a
very big difference to the knowledge with which a man is credited,
and a very popular argument based on the above stated notion is
that since a person will have knowledge of his deed, he also has
the intention to commit it. However, this does not apply to a case
where an individual is so drunk that he is unable to from the
required intent. In case of R v Kingston, the case that I have
already elucidated, the principle that we follow as well as was
laid down that if an individual was able to form the required
intent even though he was intoxicated, he will be convicted.
So far as the question of knowledge is concerned, the court must
adopt the same stand as given to a normal human being, but the
question of intent adds complications. Thus, in a case where the
accused slit the abdomen of his friend, he was excluded from
liability due to section 86 of the Indian Penal Code, simply
because he was not able to form the necessary intent.
Basudev
v. State of Pepsu
A retired military officer was charged with the murder of a young
boy of 15 or 16. Both of them and others of the same village
attended a marriage party. All of them went to the house of the
bride to attend the mid-day meal. Some had settled down in their
seats and some had not. A military who was very drunk and
intoxicated, asked the young boy to step aside a little so that he
may occupy a convenient seat. But, when he did not move, the
military officer whipped out a pistol and shot him in the abdomen.
The injury proved fatal. The evidence showed that the accused
sometimes staggered and sometimes was incoherent in his talk. But
it was shown that he was capable of moving himself independently
and was capable of talking coherently as well. The evidence proved
that he came on his own to the house of the bride and that he made
the choice of his own seat after injuring the deceased, he
attempted to get away and was secured a short distance from the
scene. When he was secured, he realized what he had done and asked
for forgiveness. All these facts, according to the SC, go to prove
that there was no proved incapacity on the accused to form the
intention to cause bodily harm sufficient in the ordinary course
of the nature to cause death. In view of his failure tom prove
such incapacity, the law presumed that he intended the natural and
probable consequences of his act. In other words, he intended to
inflict bodily injuries on the deceased and the bodily injuries so
intended to be inflicted, was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death. The accused was found guilty of murder.
Mavari Surya Sathya Narayan
v. State of AP
The accused and the deceased were married for 11 years. He was an
alcoholic and quarreled often with her. One day he came home drunk
and asked her to sign on some blank papers. When she refused, he
pulled her by her hair and dragged her into the room and attempted
to set fire on her. The deceased put out the flames and tried to
run away. The accused again pulled her, poured kerosene and set
fire to her. The deceased died of the burns. The Andhra Pradesh
High Court, relying on the SC decision in Basudev v. State of
Pepsu, held that having regard to the facts, it couldn’t be said
that the accused was in total loss of mental power and hence the
provisions of s.85 will not apply.
Venkappa Kannappa Chowdhari
v. State of Karnataka
The accused, quarrelsome by nature, was addicted to liquor. The
son of the accused died in a motor accident. The accused wanted
the compensation amount of 10000, which was in the name of the
accused’s wife. On the day of the decision, he came home drunk and
asked his wife to withdraw the fixed deposit amount. When his wife
refused to comply, he beat her, took a tin of kerosene oil,
sprinkled it on her and set her on fire. His wife screamed and the
neighbors took her to the hospital. A dying declaration was
recorded. The accused took the plea of incapacity due to
intoxication u/s 85 IPC. His plea was rejected because he had
voluntarily consumed alcohol. He was convicted and sentenced to
life imprisonment.
Conclusion
After much research on the topic, it can be said that intoxication
is not a very strong defence, and even if it serves to mitigate
the severity of a punishment, it cannot exculpate a person from
liability. This is essential because absolute and cold logic
cannot be applied to human affairs, as they require certain
flexibility in their dealing. A common man will not have much
regard for the law if a drunken man batters him, and the man gets
away with his conduct merely because he was too intoxicated to
think clearly.
In India as well, the law that has been followed till date has its
foundation in the British law. The first categorical difference is
that in case of British law, the defence of intoxication is not
codified under any specific section, while under the Indian law it
has been clearly codified in sections eighty-five and eighty-six
of the Indian Penal Code.
In Indian law, the clause that the drug has to be administered
against the will of the individual is given much more importance
than it is under the British law. Also, the dichotomy between
specific intent and basic intent is given a lot of importance in
case of British law. The severity of the punishment an individual
can be given is reduced due to this.
In Indian law as well this exception is applicable, as well as an
exception in case the individual’s mind is diseased. This portion
of our law is very similar to the British law; as a matter of fact
the cases that have been cited as authority are also British.
The second factor that can be considered in the case is that in
the Indian criminal law, the difference has been made very clear
between the intention and knowledge of an individual. Even in
British law, the specific intent and the basic intent dichotomy
has been elaborated, but they have not given an exclusive
difference between the knowledge and intent.
The English law has evolved over a series of cases and it has come
a long way from the rigid law that it was earlier. In the early
nineteenth century, alcohol would never have been able to serve as
a defence. Rather it would have had a reverse effect and this
shows us how much the law has progressed in this aspect over a
period of time.
|
Voluntary Intoxication
More
Articles:
The
author can be reached at: abhilekh@legalserviceindia.com /
