Indian Penal code- Intoxication

INTOXICATION A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SEC 85 AND SEC 86 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

DONE BY: B.MADHURI 1ST YEAR B.L (HONS)

TABLE OF CONTENTS (i)

INTR IN TRODU ODUCT CTION ION TO IN INT TOXIC OXICAT ATIO ION. N.... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...3 3

(ii)

DRUN DR UNKEN KENESS ESS... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...3 3

(iii) (iii)

SECTIO SECTIONS NS FOR FOR IN INT TOXIC OXICAT ATIO ION N IN IPC IPC... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... ..... ...... ....4 .4

(iv)

WAYS OF IN INTO TOXIC XICAT ATION ION.... ........ ........ ......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........ ........5 ....5

(v)

TYPES OF INTOXICATION (a) VOLUN VOLUNTAR TARY Y INTOXICATION................... INTOXICATION.............................. ...................... ....................5 .........5 (b) INVOLUNTARY INTOXIACTION..............................................6

(vi)

ONUS ONUS OF PROO PROOF.... F......... ......... ........ ........ ......... .......... .......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .....7 .7

(vii)

CASE LAWS (a) Basudev v. State State of Pepsu............. Pepsu.......................... ........................... ......................8 ........8 (b) Ve Venkappa nkappa Kannappa Kannappa Chowdhari Chowdhari v. State of Karnataka....8 Karnataka....8 (c) Macherla Balaswamy Balaswamy of Guntur v. State of Tam Tamilil Nadu....8 (d) The public prosecutor prosecutor v. Budipiti Devasikamani.......... Devasikamani............. .....10 (e) Sheikh Falsar Falsar v. State 2006............................... 2006............................................ ...............11

(viii)

CONCL CONCLUSIO USION.. N....... ......... ........ ........ ........ ......... .......... .......... .......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ...... ....12

2

INTRODUCTION The topic that I have selected selected falls under the category of defenses. In certain instances due to circumstances or other reasons reasons that are beyond beyond an individual‟s control he 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, 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 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. Intoxication Intoxication is codified in section 85 and 86 of of the Indian penal code. What is drunkenness? Drunkenness is a consequence of drinking intoxicating liquors to such an extent as to alter the normal condition of an individual and significantly reduce his capacity for rational action 3

and conduct. It can be asserted as a defense in civil and criminal actions in which the state of mind of the defendant is an essential element to be established in order to obtain legal relief. What is the state of intoxication intoxication reffered to in Section 85 and Section 86 of the Penal Code? There are of course many varying degrees of drunkenness which culminate in a state in which the person becomes incapable of knowing the nature of any act. The word “state of intoxication” In Section 86 can only mean intoxication which renders a person incapable of knowing the nature of the act in question or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law when he commits the act. It would be extremely dangerous to extend the protection under Section 86, Penal Code to persons who commit serious offence under the influence of liquor in varying stages and differentiate culpability in their favour as opposed to similar offence by perfectly sober persons. Drunkenness makes no difference in the knowledge with which a man is charged and a man knew what the natural consequences of his acts where it must be presumed to have intended to have caused them. Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the question of knowledge possessed by an accused person at the time he commits the offence and leaves quite open the question of intention. There must be some material record to show that the accused person was so intoxicated intoxicated thathe was out of his mind for that period of time t ime when he was committing the offence otherwise he can not avail the benefits of Sec 85 and Sec 86. No question of drunkeness arises here, but the level of drunkeness plays a vital role. Intoxication can be understood as the state of a person when he has consumed alcohol or any drug that changes his thought process and tends him to behave behave in a manner, that he would not behaved in, if he was not under the influence of that particular par ticular substance. Intoxication and drunkenness are two words that can be used inter changeably. changeably. A person who is under the influence of alcohol does not usually think before he says or does something. The level of alcohol the person has consumed also plays a vital role in his behavior, generally people who has consume alcohol to a large extent are the ones who act in an inappropriate manner. They They are similar to people of unsound mind. They do not know the consequences of the act that they engage themselves themselves in, they might also not know that the act that they are doing is illegal ill egal and would be punished for the same. But there are also cases when the “intoxicated person” who has committed a crime would not be punished, this is when the intoxication has occurred involuntarily and the burden of proof that he was intoxicated against his will lies in i n the hands of the accused. Therefore, in this paper we are going to discuss in detail about the types of intoxication, the burden of proof, how it is diagnosed and few of the landmark cases regarding the same. 4

SECTIONS AND PROVISIONS PROVISIONS Sec 85 and Sec 86 of the Indian Penal Code deal with intoxication. Sec 85 - Act of a person incapable of judgement by reason of intoxication caused against his will. The provision says “ Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by the 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 ws administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.” This section means that if a person does something against the law i.e, illegal in nature because he is intoxicated without knowing the nature of the act he is exempted from liabilities and the act done by him is not considered as an offence given that he was intoxicated intoxicated against his will that is without his knowledge. Sec 86 - Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated. The provision says that “ In cases where an act done is not an offence o ffence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be laible 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 intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. This means that if a person has an intention to do the act even before he was intoxicated and committs the act after intoxication, it will mean under the eyes of law that the act was done like as if he was not intoxicated. intoxicated. This is valid as a defense only if the intoxication was involuntary.

WAYS AYS IN WHICH WH ICH A PERSON CAN BE INTOXICATED INTOXICATED A person can be intoxica i ntoxicated ted in a number of ways, ways, but the most common way would either be drugs or alcohol. Alcohol Al cohol intoxication is other wise called inebriation. The other types of intoxication include:

5

Substance intoxication Alcohol intoxication Opioid intoxication (Toxidrom (Toxidrome) e) - Hypertension and hallucination. This is also commonly caused due to drug overdose. Cannabinoid intoxication - caused due to overdose of medication for nausea and pain. Sedative and Hypnotic intoxication (see benzodiazepine overdos overdose e and barbiturate overdose)) overdose Cocaine intoxication Caffeine Intoxication Hallucinogen intoxica intoxication tion Stimulant intoxication Water intoxication Drug overdose Inhalant intoxication Intoxication (album) Intoxication can occur in any of the above mentioned ways. ways. But if the person that has been intoxicated intoxicated commits a crime, he will be held liable depending upon how he was intoxicated. The intention ( mens rea ) behind the act will also play a vital role. If the person had the intention to commit a crime before he was under the influence of the t he substance and was very well aware of the legal consequences and commits the crime after consuming the intoxicated toxicated substance voluntarily he will be held liable. But if the person commits the crime after consuming the intoxicated substance without the knowledge of the legal consequnces and the act itself, the case will be different di fferent because here it has to be considered if the person was intoxicated voluntarily or involuntarily. involuntarily. We will now discuss voluntary and involuntary intoxication. intoxication. TYPES OF INTOXICATION Intoxication can be of two types: (i)

Volunt Vo luntary ary intoxic intoxication ation - This This is where where the the person person who consumes consumes the intoxica intoxicated ted subsubstance consumes it with full knowledge and by his own will and wish wihtout any compulsion of others. Even though voluntary intoxication means that someone has consumed intoxicating substances 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 i mportant and even though a person maybe voluntarily intoxicated, intoxicated, the very fact that he is unable to form the required intent works in his favor. The severity 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 6

basic intent. An intoxicant 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.Acts done under such circumstances are not exempted exempted from any liability. He shall be deemed to have done the act that was against the law like as if he was not intoxicated, the knowledge of the intoxicated can in no way be of defense but the intention of the person is to be regarded depending upon the situation of the case. More often than not intention and knowledge merge. Intention is something which is prompted by motive and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. So if the person is said to have sufficient knowledge about the act he is also said to have the intention. If the person knew before he was intoxicated intoxicated that an act he does will result in death (knowledge) and commits the act after being intoxicated voluntarily he will be punished under IPC.

(ii)

Involuntary tary in intoxication ion As opposed to voluntary, involuntary intoxication is when the person has been intoxicated against his will and knowledge. This serves ser ves as a defense to the accused because the was incapable of knowing the nature of the act. A person seeking protection of sec 86 has to establish :

(a)

thatt he wa tha was s incap incapabl able e of knowin knowing g the the natu nature re of of the the act act or or acts acts comm committ itted ed

(b) (b)

that that he he did didnt nt kno know w that that he he was was do doin ing g som somet ethi hing ng cont contrar rary y to law law

(c)

thatt the tha the thing thing which which int intox oxica icated ted to him him was was aga agains insrr his his will/ will/ with without out his conse consent. nt. Section 85 applies only in cases of involuntary intoxication (drunkenness). (drunkenness). Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse excuse for the commission of the crime.

Where the accused could not show that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of the commission of the offence, of fence, the benefit of Section 85 was not given. Situations where a person cannot claim the benefit of Sec 85 of IPC (i) Where the intoxication is administered to the accused accused by stratagem or fraud of another, another, as when mixed with his food or drink and given to him in confidence he is excused. excused.

7

(ii) On this view if friends or relatives persuade persuade a person to drink a little more than he can reasonably digest, he cannot complain that he was made to drink a little more than he can reasonably digest, he cannot complain that he was made to drink against his will. (iii) Where an accused takes liquor to alleviate pain, it is not a case of involuntary drunkenness and the accused is not protected by Section 85. Drunkenness may may in extreme cases result in delirium, tremors or insanity- whether temporary or permanent and if it is does so, the offender will be held not guilty. Unless drunkenness either amounts to unsoundness of mind so as to enable insanity to be pleaded by way of defence, or the degree of drunkenness is such as to establish incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, drunkenness is neither a defence nor a palliation. It is not necessary that in all cases involuntary intoxication intoxication will be excused excused by the law. This can be explained with the help of the following case laws.

ONUS OF PROOF ( Difficulty of proof ) The onus of proof about reason of intoxication due to which the accused had become incapable of having particular knowledge in forming the particular intention was on the accused. Basically there are three propositions as regards the scope and ambit of Section 85, IPC. ( mentioned under involuntary intoxication). The normal presumption is that a man intends the normal consequences of his acts. In a case where the defence is of drinking it is for the accused to lead evidence to rebut such presumption by giving evidence of his drunkenness and proving proving the degree of his intoxication to show that his mind was so affected by drink that he was not in a position to form any intent essential to constitute the 8

crime. Therefore, the burnden of proof that he/she committed the crime only because of the presence of alcohol in their body and would not have done done so if not for it lies in i n the hands of the accused. This burden of proving innocence is not an easy task. The person cannot say that he committed a mistake while he was drunk. The consumption of the intoxicated drink itself cannot be an excuse, if a person says that he was intoxicated to a level that he got the idea of committing the crime only after the alcohol entered his body and that he would have not acted in the way he did if he were sober it will not stand as a defence. Since if an honest and reasonable mistake by sober person cannot afford a defence, a mistake while drunk cannot do so.

9

Case Laws

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 milita ry who was very drunk and intoxicated, asked 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 to prove such incapacity, 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 found guilty of murder and was convicted under Sec 302. 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, 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.

10

Macherla Balaswamy of Guntur v. State of Tamil Nadu Appellant and Venkayya lived very close to each other in Guntur Town. Venkayya had a petty shop by the road side. There was evidence of some previous ill-feeling between them over the purchase of a house, which wa ultimately bought by venkayya venkayya in competition with the appellant. Venkayya Venkayya said that he filed a complaint against the appellant about a year ago before this offense, which was dismissed. According to the evidnece of Venkayya Venkayya and two eye witness whom the trail court believed, was that between 6:30 and 7pm on 19-4-1950, Venkayya was ssitting on a bench near his shop. Appellant suddenly came near him with a knife and started stabbing him. When Venkayya’s sister, who was sitting at the shop counter came to intervene, he stabbed her in the stomach. Appellant then ran away. Venkayya and his sister Bhudevamma were both taken to the Central Crime Station and a statement was made by Bhudevamma where she described that the appellant was fully drunk though there was no referance to that. The appellant was arrested two days later by a head constable who also said he was in a drunken condition even during the arrest. There can be no doubt that despite the opinion of the assessors, who thought that appellant was not guilty, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly found that appellant it was who stabbed both Venkayya and Bhudevamma. Mr. Jayarama Ayyar for the appellant has not seriously challenged this finding and concentrated his argument before the court on the plea of intoxication, which he urged in this t his case would, under Section 88, Penal Code reduce the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The injuries on Venkayya may well have had fatal consequences. He was stabbed twice in the chest and once in the abdomen. One chest wound was 11/2" deep and the abdominal wound is also described as 11/2" 11/2" deep. As the doctor has deposed these wounds were on vital parts of the body and if they had penetrated a little further furth er,, they may have caused danger to life. Bhudevamma had a penetrating wound, not so deep, viz., 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/2" on the left l eft side of the chest which unfortunately, howeve however, r, punctured the stomach. In consequence of this, she died in the hospital the following night. As we understand Mr. Jayaram Ayyar's argument it is that appellant was in a state of intoxication and therefore under Section 86, Penal Code, he is not guilty of murder which requires a particular knowledge or intent and would be liable to be dealt with as if he had only the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated. Appellant was been found guilty under S. 302, Penal Code of the murder of Bhudevamma Bhudevamma by inflicting on her a single stab in the abdomen when she intervened when the appellant was stabbing her brother Venkayya . He has also been found guilty under Section 324, Penal Cede, in respect of injuries he inflicted en Venkayya, Venkayya, although charged in that of at-

11

tempting to murder him under Section 307, Penal Code. He has been sentenced to transportation for life and to two years rigorous Imprisonment respectively. respectively. In this particular part icular case, we are quite satisfied that although the appellant may have been the worse for liquor, he knew perfectly welt what he was doing when he came up to Venkayya with a knife and set about stabbing him, it would appear, murderously in his chest. The learned Sessions Judge appears to us to have taken taken a lenient and charitable view of the attack on Venkayya, which was really more murderous than that on his sister Bhudevamma, Bhudevamma, who intervened and received only one stab in her abdomen. A man, who keeps on stabbing persons in vital parts, part s, must clearly be presumed to know the consequences of his acts and it is not open to him to plead that he was so drunk at the time t ime as not to know or intend what he was doing. We have no hesitation in rejecting this defence based on the distinction between knowledge and intention in Section 86, Penal Code, put forward to reduce the offence to one under Section 304, Penal Code. One of the witnesses to the stabbing, told the investigating officer that he saw the appellant and Venkayya were fighting before the stabbing. The learned Sessions Judge gave this as one of the reasons for not passing on the appellant the extreme penalty. penalty. On the whole, we do not think that t hat the extreme penalty was called for in this case. We confirm the convictions of the appellant and also the sentences passed on him, though we think, as regards the attack on P.W. 1, he should have been more correctly convicted as charged under Section 307 Penal Code, instead of under Section 324, Penal Code.

THE PUBLIC PROSCECUTOR V. BUDIPITI DEVASIKAMANI The accused in this case was charged before the learned Agency Sessions Judge, East Godavari, that he, on the 19th of June, 1926, committed mischief by setting fire to the thatched building of the Board Elementary School at Gurtedu, with intent to destroy the same, an offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the accused took a torch from the kitchen, ran to the building, put it to the thatch and then threw it on the roof of the kitchen and ran away. away. The thatch caught fire and the school building was completely destroyed. destroyed. The learned Sessions Judge found that the accused set fire to the school building but acquitted him on the ground that he was insane at the time when he did it and was therefore incapable of forming the intention or of having the knowledge which forms an essential ingredient of the offence. Against this acquittal the Crown has presented this appeal. accused is a smoker of ganja. There is evidence to 12

show that, as a result of this vicious habit, he used to threaten to beat his father and children, and used to beat his wife and run away into the forest, he would not take his food properly and when he was given it he would throw it away. The evidence also shows that he used to tear his cloth and wander about in the forest. He was kept under observation in the Central Tail Tail at Rajahmundry for a fortnight. The Medical Officer O fficer who examined him found no reason to pronounce him insane at that time. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the plea of insanity is not borne out by these facts, that at the most the evidence would only show that the accused used to get voluntarily intoxicated by smoking ganja off and on and that voluntary intoxication is no defence to a criminal act. The learned lawyer for the accused argues that the evidence is to the effect that ganja smoking has induced in the accused incapacity to understand the quality or nature of his wrongful act and has produced in him a condition akin to that of delirium tremens in the case of a drunken man and that, even if this is not the case, under Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code the accused can rely upon voluntary intoxication in defence when he is charged as in this case with an offence of which 'intent' is a necessary ingredient. The onus of proving the defence afforded by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code clearly rests upon the accused. As regards the first contention, we have have no doubt that the evidence does not warrant a finding that the accused's habit of smoking ganja had induced i nduced in him a diseased state of mind so as to make him incapable of understanding the wrongfulness of his act. The Civil Surgeon found 'no case to pronounce him insane'; but according to his evidence the accused looked "more sad than insane". Though smoking ganja might account for the queer things which the accused used to do, we do not think that the facts in this case, viewed in. the light of well-known judicial decisions, such as Queen-Empress v. Venkataswami Venkataswami (1889), (1889), are strong enough to give him exemption from the criminality of his conduct under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The fact that he ran away after putting the torch to the thatch shows that at the time he committed the offence he was conscious that what he was doing was wrongful. As regards the second contention, the wording of Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code lends some support to the argument advanced before us. That section lays down that, in certain classes of cases, the intoxicated person shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had not been intoxicated; but it does not provide that an intoxicated person shall be dealt with as if he had the same intent. Though ordinarily intention is to be inferred from knowledge, there may be cases where intent must be found as a fact and cannot be assumed in which cases voluntary drunkenness may be relied on to show that the required 'intent' is absent.

13

This, we think, is the t he utmost that could be said in favour of this contention. Even according to this restricted interpretation in this case, the evidence makes makes it clear that, in spite of the ganja smoking, the accused had the requisite criminal intent, because as soon as he put the torch to the thatch he ran away. He knew that the act he was doing was a wrongful one and from this knowledge we can assume that he must have had the criminal 'intent' requisite for the offence. Further, the evidence shows that the accused himself was a school master in the same school for about a year and that, when his father who had retired from the school found that his son was behaving badly he (the father) made a report asking for his son six months' leave. The accused must have apprehended that the result of the report would be the termination of his connection with the t he school and therefore he must have deliberately set fire to the building to show his annoyance. Therefore, the acquittal of the accused was set aside and convict him of the offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code with which he was charged and sentence him to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. impri sonment.

Sheikh Falsar v. State ( 2006) Facts : A young girl of 7-8 years, had queued up along with other poor and destitutes, who line up at the Delhi’s famous ‘ Hanuman Mandir’, to receive prasadam from the devotees visiting the temple. Her mother and aunt were also waiting in the queue. The girl was approached by the appellant with a promise to buy her bangles and a ‘pajeb’. The appellant took the young and unsespecting girl to a khatta ( enclosure for garbage ) where hr removed her frock and got her naked and committed rape on her. The act was committed in a gruesome manner. They hymen was torn. There was a second degree perennial tear and profuse bleeding. the girl even became unconscious unconscious and her vagina had to be stitched. A public witness, named Ramesh kumar, heard the cries of a girl, when she was being raped. He peeped in and found the appellant weaing a banyan and tehmat. The appellant thereupon left the girl and took to his heels. The witness along with a policde constable chased the appellant, who was apprehended after some distance and caught him. Medical evidence and reports corroborate the testimony of the girl and the public witness of rape having been committed by the appellant. The mother of the girl was also examined, examined, who stated that after finding her daughter missing, she was looking for her and found her at Kotwali with her clothes soaked with blood. The appellant claims clean antecedents and stated that he has never been convicted before. The appellant in a statement under Section 313 313 CRPC, while denying the charge stated that he was under the influence of liqour and did not know what had happened. Mr. V.K. V.K.

14

Raina submitted that the appellant being intoxicated, could not be attributed with knowledge and intention for his act. He placed reliance on the judgment Basdev v. State of Pepsu . We are not persuaded to accept this submission on behalf of the appellant. Reference may be made to Section 86 IPC. Section 86, IPC provides that a person who does an act in a state of intoxication, shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have if he was not intoxicated; unless the intoxicant is administered without his knowledge or against his will. Moreover, Moreover, the cited judgment Itself recognizes that drunkenness is ordinarily neither a defense nor excuse excuse for crime, and where it is available as a partial answer to a charge, it i t rests on the prisoner to prove it. It is not enough that he was excited or rendered more irritable, unless the intoxication was such as to prevent prevent his restraining himself from committing the act in question, or to take away from him the power of forming any specific intention. Such a state of drunkenness drunkenness has to be shown. In the instant case, no evidence of drunkenness has been led by the respondent. A perusal of the medical report of the appellant, who was examined on the same day at 4.45 p.m., i.e., within two hours of the crime, does not show or record any signs of drunkenness or alcohol having been consumed. This plea is, therefore, not available available to the appellant. The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 366 and Section 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code. Vide order of sentence dated 5th February, 2002, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 376(2) (f), IPC. In default of payment of fine, appellant was to undergo further SI for one year. year. The appellant was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 10, 000/-. In default, simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 366, IPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently with the benefit of Section 428, Cr.P.C. also available to the appellant.

CONCLUSION After analyzing the topic, it can be said that intoxication is not a very strong defense, and even if it serves to reduce the severity of a punishment, a person cannot escape compelety from liability. This is because common man will not have much respect for the law if a drunken man commits something against him, and the man gets away with his conduct merely because he was too intoxicated to think clearly. clearly. Law aims to do justice for all, in this case it clearly wouldnt be justice if the drunken man is let go on the basis of mere intoxciation. More often than not people commit crimes and claim that they were under the influence of alcohol to try and get the benefits of Sec 86 under the IPC. I PC. But thanks to the science and 15

technology prevelant prevelant it is easy for the courts to analyse whether the accused was really under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicated substance substance if he was arrested or taken into custody immediately after the crime scene. Witness also play a big role in these cases where the judgements are to be taken where the accused was not arrested immediately after the scene or where he claims false intoxication. 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 85 and 86 of the Indian Penal Code.

16

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1)

PSA PSA P Pilla illai’i’s s Crim Crimina inall law, law, K I VIBHUT VIBHUTE, E, ttent enth h edit edition ion..

2)

THE THE INDI INDIAN AN PEN PENAL AL COD CODE, E, 18 1860 (20 (2012)

3)

Indiankanoon.org

4)

parl pa rlia iame men nt.n t.nsw.go .gov.au .au

17