WHAT IS GENERAL DEFENCE?
As it is well known[1] that Sections 76–106[2] of the Indian Penal Code make their decisions based on the premise that a person may not be accountable for the crimes or allegations that have been concocted against him, this broad Défense provides that individual with a chance to demonstrate that he is not guilty of the offence. The primary objective of general defences was to provide broad exceptions to each crime to assist the innocent in establishing their innocence. Therefore, before we discuss the sections, we need to be aware of the following: ‘According to section 6 of the Indian Penal Code, wherever the term offence is the word, it should be noted that crime will always be linked with its general exceptions.
WHAT IS INTOXICATION AND HOW A PERSON IS PROTECTED UNDER IPC?
Chapter IV[3] of the IPC contains general exceptions that pertain to intoxication. A person is generally exempted from criminal liability based on particular circumstances, including intoxication, lunacy, assent, and so forth. The accused bears the burden of proof in establishing the point of exception. In most cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to secure a guilty plea for a criminal offence. However, the accused is required to provide evidence that substantiates his exemption from criminal liability.
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION[4]
While voluntary intoxication does not exempt an individual from criminal liability, two exceptions warrant consideration:
- First, Mens Rea must be a fundamental element of the offence; second, the evidence must demonstrate that the accused was so profoundly intoxicated at the time of committing the crime that he did not intend to do so; and third, there are no exceptions to this rule.
- A circumstance in which the defendant is a frequent drunkard who is so dependent on intoxication that he is mentally incapable of comprehending the nature of the act.
INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION
It is the condition in which an individual is unknowingly administered intoxicating substances, thus falling into this category. In that case, the defendant may be found not guilty if he can provide court-satisfying evidence that he was not under the influence of alcohol and had no intention of committing the murder.
‘Section 85[5] of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with circumstances when an individual is rendered incapable of exercising voluntary control as a result of being subjected to poisoning. In instances of this nature, an individual cannot be deemed legally responsible for any transgressions made while under the influence of a poisonous chemical, on the condition that said substance was delivered to them without their awareness or their volition.[6]
To be able to use intoxication as a defence under the IPC, one must fulfil all the following conditions:
- The person is obligated to carry out a certain task.
- They must be incapable of comprehending the purpose of the behaviour.
- Their intoxication is the reason for this incapacity on their part.
- The intoxication must have been given to them against their will, and without their knowledge.
- It is necessary that the inability be present at the time that the conduct was committed.
Bablu v State of Rajasthan[7], (2006) 13 SCC 116 – In its analysis of Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court determined that, in addition to other relevant facts, evidence of intoxication and proof that the accused is incapable of forming a wrongful intent must be considered. Subsequently, it is necessary to establish whether the accused has the intent to commit a crime. Individuals who consume intoxicants voluntarily are not protected under these sections, as they lose their mental capacity as a result of their consensual act, i.e. self-induced intoxication.[8]
Section 86[9] of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertains to instances whereby an individual, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, engages in an act that constitutes an offence necessitating a specific purpose or awareness. The passage asserts that if an action is only considered an offence when performed with specific knowledge or intent, an individual who acts while intoxicated will be held accountable as if they possessed the same knowledge as if they were not intoxicated. However, this liability does not apply if the substance that caused the intoxication was administered to the individual without their knowledge or against their will.[10]
The following is a list of the components that make up section 86[11] of the IPC:
- The existence of a certain component, such as a conscious purpose or previous knowledge
- It should be impacted by the intake of a drug that is capable of intoxicating a person.
- It is necessary for the intoxicating drug to be given to him either against his will or without his knowledge.
In the event of involuntary toxication, the individual is eligible for section 85[12]. yet as a matter of policy, the knowledge can be presumed and he might be held accountable to that extent. Rule of evidence 86 is referred to as presumption cannot be done as the intention is a higher degree of mind. presumption of knowledge reverts back to the notion that you might do something
In the case of Basdev vs State of Pepsu Basdev[13] a retired military personnel and a 15-year-old lad, had travelled to attend a wedding. While there, Basdev consumed a considerable amount of alcohol and became extremely inebriated. Even though he occasionally stumbled and spoke incoherently, the evidence demonstrated that he was still capable of independently moving himself and conversing coherently. He requested that the youngster move slightly aside to make way for him to claim a more convenient seat. The child declined. As a result, Basdev drew a pistol and fatally shot the boy in the abdomen. Additionally, the evidence revealed that Basdev tried to run away after shooting the child, and when apprehended by the witnesses, he begged them for forgiveness. There was also no evidence that he required special assistance when being taken to the police station. Taking into consideration all of these details, the court determined that his level of intoxication was not to the extent that it rendered his mind so obscured that he was incapable of forming the necessary intent. The court noted that concerning knowledge, the intoxicated individual must be ascribed to an identical level of knowledge as if he were completely coherent. However, concerning intent or purpose, it is necessary to ascertain it from the pertinent circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the level of intoxication.
CONCLUSION
The IPC acknowledges intoxication as a potential determinant of criminal liability; however, the implementation of this defence is contingent upon the circumstances and conditions delineated in Sections 85 and 86. In the case under discussion, the judiciary demonstrated a nuanced approach by taking into account the degree of intoxication and its influence on an individual’s mental capacity to ascertain legal responsibility. In determining whether an individual has committed a crime, human guilt, or mens rea, is crucial. When considering involuntary intoxication, the court has the intent to convict the accused of a crime against his will, whether or not he is aware of the addiction or the offence. Nevertheless, when considering voluntary intoxication, the court operates under the presumption that the defendant is cognizant of their alcohol consumption and deduces their intent based on the evidence and circumstances that are presented.
Author(s) Name: Khushi Tiwari (Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad)
Reference(s):
[1] Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss 85 & 86
[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 76-106
[3] Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 76-106
[4] Daksheeja Sharma, ‘Difference between Voluntary and Involuntary intoxication with Medico-legal effect’ (theedulaw) <https://portal.theedulaw.com/SingleNotes?title=difference-between-voluntary-and-involuntary-intoxication-with-medico-legal-effect> accessed on 24 November 2023
[5] Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 86
[6] Law Bhoomi, ‘Intoxication in IPC’ (LawBhoomi) <https://lawbhoomi.com/intoxication-in-ipc/> accessed on 24 November 2023
[7] Bablu v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 13 SCC 116
[8] Bablu v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 13 SCC 116
[9] Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 86
[10] Century law firm, ‘Section 86 Indian Penal Code (IPC) – All you need to know’ (Century law firm) <https://www.centurylawfirm.in/blog/section-86-indian-penal-code-ipc-legal-section-of-the-day /> accessed on 24 November 2023
[11] Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 86
[12] Indian Penal Code, 1860, s 85
[13] Basudev v State of Pepsu (1954) SC 722
