Intoxication
Intoxication is the condition of having physical or mental control markedly
diminished by the effects of alcohol or drugs. Intoxication is a defence at the
hand of a criminal defendant. Taking the grounds of defence in a criminal act as
an “
Intoxication” certain thing should be cognizant of that mere the
intoxication is not sufficient there are certain points that matter:
Intoxication is voluntary or involuntary [1]
If voluntary then no defence of intoxication stands as in this case knowledge is
to be presumed in the same manner as if there was no drunkenness, defence is
only available to involuntary intoxication. Also, the burden of proving
himself/herself involuntarily intoxicated lies on the defendant. Related case
Jatroo Oraon v. State of West Bengal [2]
We also talk about the level of intoxication [3]
In this, we talk about the intoxication level that how's the person is,
whether fully intoxicated or half intoxicated. So far as intention is
concerned, it must be gathered from the attending general circumstances of
the case paying due regard to the degree of intoxication- was the person
besides his mind altogether for the time being? If so, it would not be
possible to fix him with the requisite intention- but he had not gone so
deep in drinking. Related case Paul
v. State of Kerala (2020).[4]
- Although the person is dipsomaniac, at the time of crime does his
actions were enough to prove the result or outcome of his act. [5]
From the facts it could be found that a person knew what he does or what he was
about to do, it's his action after the commitment of the crime that explains his
stability of intoxication as the action he performs. The rule to be applied is
that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts.
Related case
Shankar Jaiswara v. State of West Bengal (2007). [6]
The above mentioned all the three points were also explained in
Mirza Ghani Baig
v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) [7] case where the defendant was charged with
302 and 304. Here the defendant assaulted his wife daily after being
intoxicated. One night when the defendant came home (drunk) the deceased serve
him dinner after finishing the dinner when he was about to leave, objected by
deceased as a result of objection he takes the kerosene to pour on the deceased
and light her the fire.
On the screaming of the deceased defendant try to
extinguish the fire with a blanket. In this case, the defendant was trying to
take the defence of intoxication. The court dismissed the intoxication defence
by stating that defendant was failed to prove the involuntary intoxication, His
action of saving her wife is enough to prove that he knew the consequences of
his act, this means he was in the state of knowing his actions of burning. And
he gets convicted under section 304 part-ii of IPC. [8]
In the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, the criminal liability under
intoxication is cited under section 85 and 86. [9]
Section 85:
It states that: 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.
Applicability of exception.[10] —Defence of intoxication/drunkenness can be
availed of only when intoxication produces such a condition as the accused loses
the requisite intention for the offence and onus of proof about the reason of
intoxication, due to which the accused had become incapable of having particular
knowledge in forming a particular intention, is on the accused. Evidence of
drunkenness that renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent
essential to constitute the crime should be taken into account with the other
facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had the intention. Merely
establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave
way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends
the natural consequences of his acts,
Suraj Jagannath Jadhav v. the State of
Maharashtra. [11]
Intoxication:
Voluntary intoxication is not a plea recognized as an exception to criminal
liability, Chet Ram v. State. [12]
Section 86:
It states that In cases where an act was done is not an offence unless done with
a piece of 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.
Drunkenness when a defence or mitigating factor:
So far as knowledge is
concerned, in cases of voluntary drunkenness, knowledge is to be presumed in the
same manner as if there was no drunkenness. So far as intention is concerned, it
must be gathered from the attending general circumstances of the case paying due
regard to the degree of intoxication.
Was the man beside his mind altogether for
the time being? If so, it would not be possible to fix him with the requisite
intention but if he had not gone so deep in drinking, and from the facts, it
could be found that he knew what he was about, the rule to be applied is that a
man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts, Paul v.
the State of Kerala. [13]
Intoxication refers to absence of mens rea:
The constituent elements of the crime are:
- mens rea
- actus rea
A person
when he is intoxicated the mens rea get vanishes. As the person will not in a
clear state of understanding his action so the main thing of a crime is absent. Mens
rea is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or
knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be
committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.
Intoxication is more typically regarded as an aggravating factor
that proliferate the degree of social disapproval reflected in the sentence
imposed by the court. In
A-G for Northern Ireland v. Gallagher [14] case two
examples were given by Lord Denning.
The first was in the context of a nurse who
drunk so much that she presumed the child as a wooden log and put the child in
the fire at a christening ceremony. The next example was related to an
intoxicated person who thinks a theatrical dummy to his friend who was lying on
the bed he stabbed him to death. According to Lord Denning some defences to
murder would be available in each of these cases. It is true that that
drunkenness makes mistakes much more conceivable.[15]
In the
Director of Public
Prosecution v. Beard [16] case the accused raped and murdered a 13-year-old girl
and took the plea of intoxication. It was held that only in the absence of mens
rea the defence of intoxication would be granted. Some considerable developments
have been done in the field of criminal law in recent cases such as Soolkal &
another v. The State [17], where the court has asked the accused to show
specific evidence that he was intoxicated and lacked mens rea.
The court also
stated that the burden of proof in such cases resting on the defendant will not
be satisfied only by offering evidence that the accused had consumed alcohol or
by a loss of memory due to intoxication.
If after the involuntary intoxication and mens rea is still present then what?
Such type of condition could also have arisen where the mens rea and involuntary
intoxication both are present this could be because of:
- The drink/drug that was administered was not in the adequate quantity so
that the person loses his/her mental balance as stated in the case Dhananjay
Singh Chauhan v. The State of NCT of Delhi [18] where the learned counsel for
the appellant lastly contended that the appellant was otherwise also in a state
of non-voluntary intoxication and without prejudice to his claim, he should be
given benefit under Section 85 and 86 of the IPC. Court denied the defence of
involuntary intoxication as he has not administered the amount of alcohol as his
action himself clear that he was in a stable state.
- The person has got sufficient time to recover, effect could lie on the
body but mentally stable (capable of judging his/her actions)
As of the current scenario, the involuntary intoxication will not consider as a
defence if mens rea is present. Let’s see this in context of R v Kingston [19]
case where it was stated that the involuntary intoxication in itself will not be
a defence until or unless it disapproves of the presence of mens rea. After the
decision of this case, involuntary intoxication is to be considered as a
mitigating factor in sentencing. [20]
Conclusion
Taking of drink cannot itself excuse the commission of a crime nor will
drunkenness be a defence in case of strict liability, since If an honest and
responsible mistake by a sober person cannot afford a defence, a mistake while
drunk cannot do so. [21] Defence plea is made under section 85 & 86 of IPC.
There is a very thin line between these two sections. In the context of taking
intoxication as a defence it is the responsibility of the defendant to prove
himself as involuntary intoxicated beyond any doubts.
Bibliography
Primary Source
- Indian Penal Code of 1860
Secondary Source
Articles
- Glanville Williams, “Involuntary intoxication”, (1989) 105 L.Q.R. 387
- Thom Brook, The Journal of Criminal Law 2015, Vol. 79(2) 138–146
- 7 U. Miami Ent. & Sports L. Rev. 1 (1989-1990)
- WC Myers, MA Vondruska - The journal of the American Academy …, 1998 -
europepmc.org
- RL Goldstein - Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & …, 1992 -
psycnet.apa.org
- MP Ingle - Vand. L. Rev., 2002 – HeinOnline
- J Piel - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry …, 2015 -
pdfs.semanticscholar.org
- L Buttles -. Mary's LJ, 1980 – HeinOnline
- Q Haque, I Cumming - Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 2003 - cambridge.org
Books
- Glanville Williams, Text Book of Criminal Law, Universal Law Publishing
Co., New
Delhi, 2012
- Ratanlal Dhiraj Lal, The Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur, 2012
- K.D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, Universal Law Publishing Co., New
Delhi, 2012
- William Wilson, Criminal law and theory (London: Longman law series,
2003)
- Michael J. Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law, (London: Blackstone Press
Ltd., 1999, 5th edn.).
- A.P. Simester and G.R. Sullivan, Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine, (Oxford:
Hart Publishing, 2000).
- Stanley Yeo, Fault in Homicide, (New South Wales: The Federation Press, 1997)
- P.S.A. Pillai, Criminal Law, (New Delhi: Butterworths, 2000).
End-Notes:
- Ratanlal Dhiraj Lal, The Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis, Butterworths Wadhwa,
Nagpur, 2012
- Jatroo Oraon v. State of West Bengal 2005 SCC Online Cal 526: (2006) 1 CHN
106
- Paul v. the State of Kerala, (2020) 3 SCC115
- SC CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.38 of 2020
- Shankar Jaiswara v. State of West Bengal (2007) 9 SCC 360
- 1996 SCC OnLine AP 1330: (1997) 1 ALT (Cri) 483: (1997) 1 ALD (Cri) 620
- Indian Penal Code 1860 – Bare Act
- S. 85 and 86 have codified law relating to intoxication. S.85 gives an
involuntarily intoxicated man the same immunity as that of a person of
unsound mind under S.84
- SCC OnLine
- (2020) 2 SCC 693
- (1971) cri LJ 1246
- (2020) 3 SCC 115
- [1961] 3 All ER 299
- Michael J. Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law, (London: Blackstone Press
Ltd., 1999, 5th edn.)
- [1920] 2 All ER 479 (HL)
- (1974) 3 SCC 490.
- 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3093
- [1994] 3 All ER 353, HL.
- See, Boyland Faye, ‘Involuntary intoxication is not a defence’, at, http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/articles4/boland4.html.
(Viewed on 19/07/2006).
- Bablu v. Rajasthan, (2006) 13 SCC 116 : (2007) 2 SCC (cri) 590 : (2006) 14
scale 15
Written By: Dhananjay Mishra, 2nd Year Student, Vivekanand School Of Law
And Legal Studies (GGSIPU) Delhi
Please Drop Your Comments