(a) If a person, who voluntarily consumed intoxicating liquor, commits an offence, while under the influence of such intoxication, can he plead 'voluntary intoxication' as a defence? Discuss in the light of relevant provisions of the IPC.
-
Core Legal Answer & Context: Voluntary intoxication is generally not a complete defence in criminal law, particularly under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The law presumes that a person who voluntarily intoxicates themselves is responsible for their actions. However, the IPC makes a crucial distinction: while voluntary intoxication itself is not an excuse, it can be relevant if it negates the specific mens rea (guilty mind or intent) required for a particular offence. If the intoxication was so profound that the accused was incapable of forming the specific intent or knowledge essential to constitute the crime, then the defence might be partially successful, leading to a conviction for a lesser offence that does not require that specific intent. The burden of proving such incapacity due to intoxication lies with the accused.
-
Relevant Statutes and Sections:
- Section 85, IPC: Deals with involuntary intoxication. 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. This provides a complete defence.
- Section 86, IPC: Deals with voluntary intoxication. It states that in cases where an act done by an intoxicated person would be an offence if done with a particular knowledge or intent, the person 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. This section essentially presumes knowledge but allows for the negation of specific intent if the intoxication was so severe as to prevent its formation.
- Important Landmark Cases:
- Basdev v. State of Pepsu (1956 SCR 363): The Supreme Court held that while intoxication is not a defence, if the accused was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the specific intent required for the offence, he could not be convicted of that offence. However, the Court clarified that merely being under the influence of alcohol is not enough; the intoxication must be so extreme as to render the person incapable of forming the requisite intent. The Court distinguished between 'intent' and 'knowledge' under Section 86, stating that knowledge is presumed, but intent may be negated.
- Director of Public Prosecutions v. Majewski (1977 AC 443) (UK case, influential in common law jurisdictions): This case established the distinction between crimes of 'specific intent' and 'basic intent'. Voluntary intoxication can be a defence to specific intent crimes if it negates the mens rea, but not to basic intent crimes, where the act of getting intoxicated is considered reckless and sufficient to establish the mens rea.
- Clear Conclusion: In conclusion, a person who voluntarily consumes intoxicating liquor and commits an offence while under its influence cannot generally plead 'voluntary intoxication' as a complete defence. Section 86 of the IPC presumes knowledge. However, if the intoxication was so severe that it rendered the accused incapable of forming the specific intent required for the particular offence, then the defence might succeed in reducing the charge to a lesser offence that does not require that specific intent. It is not merely being drunk, but being so incapacitated as to be unable to form the necessary mens rea, that is crucial.