A Report on a brief doctrinal project study carried out

On the topic of

“ Scope of Intoxication under Section 85 and 86”

Submitted By:- Submitted To:-

Chitraksh Mahajan Sir Deepesh Kumar

500071415

INDEX

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction to the Topic

2. Review of Literature
3. Hypothesis
4. Objective of the Study
5. Research Methodology
CHATPTER-2 The British Perspective
CHAPTER-3 Indian Perspective

CHAPTER 4 Case Laws

CHAPTER-5 CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHAPTER-1: 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.

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 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.

HYPOTHESIS:

Involuntary intoxication can act as a defense under Indian Penal Code but in cases of Voluntary
intoxication mens rea is also taken into consideration.

OBJECTIVES:

• To do a Complete overall study on Section 85 & Section 86.

• To study various landmark cases held in Supreme Court of India and house of lords

Research Methodology
The quality and value of research depends upon the proper and particular
methodology adopted for the completion of research work. Looking at the
vastness of the research topic - historical, doctrinal legal research methodology
has been adopted. To make an authenticated study of the research topic “Scope
of Intoxication under Section 85 and 86” enormous amount of study material is
required. The relevant information and data necessary for its completion has
been gathered from secondary sources available in the books, journals,
periodicals, research articles and proceedings of the seminars, websites.
Keeping in view the need of present research, various cases filed in the
Supreme Court as well as in the High Court’s on the issue of and the
judgments therein have also been used as a source of information. The
judgments pronounced in the cases have been analyzed in detail and used as a
means of diagnosis to know the basic lacunae arising in the way of providing
the remedy in case of Review of Judgment.

CHAPTER-2: 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 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.

Nevertheless, voluntary drunkenness protects 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.

CHAPTER-3: 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

Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will:

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 things which intoxicated him was administered to him
without his knowledge or against his will.1

A man in order to claim exemption from criminal liability under Section 85, IPC 1860 on the
ground of involuntary drunkenness must establish that he was (i) incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, or (ii) that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law, and (iii) that
the thing which intoxicated him was given to him without his knowledge or against his will.

SYNOPSIS

1. Scope

1 Indian Penal Code, 1860

 2. Onus to prove intoxication

3. Mistake while drunk

4. Implications of section 85

5. Intoxication- proving of.

6. Rape case- Defence of intoxication

7. State of Intoxication

1. Scope of Section 85

Section 85 applies only in cases of involuntary intoxication (drunkenness). Voluntary

drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of the crime.2

Where the accused could not show that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of the
commission of the offence, the benefit of Section 85 was not given.3

Consequently, where the intoxication is administered to the accused by stratagem or fraud of

another, as when mixed with his food or drink and given to him in confidence he is excused.
4Where the accused consumed liquor, quarreled with his wife and thereafter poured kerosene on
her and set fire, it was held that the benefit under section 85 was not available. 5 On this view if
friends or relatives 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

2 Prabhunath v. State, AIR 1957 AII 667 (DB)

3 Sohan Manjhi v. State, AIR 1970 Pat 303 : 170 Cri Lj 1245 (DB)

4 Jethuram v. State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 at p. 243

5Venkappa, K. Chowdari v. State of Karnataka, 1996 Cri LJ 15 (Kant) (DB)

complain that he was made to drink against his will.6 Where an accused takes liquor to alleviate
pain, it is not a case of involuntary drunkenness and the accused is not protected by Section 85.7

Drunkenness 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.8

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.9 Where the evidence was lacking to show accuser’s incapacity to form requisite
intention, the accused was held guilty under Section 302 and not under Section 304, Part II. 10

Where the accused caused death in state of voluntary intoxication he was held liable under
Section 302 and not under Section 304. Part II.11 Where the accused consumed liquor scolded his
wife, set fire to her, and when she extinguished the fire, set fire to her again resulting in her
death, the offence fell under section 302 and not under Section 304, Part-II.12

Voluntary drunkenness is no defence under Section 85,m but it may be taken into consideration
while awarding punishment.13 Where the abnormal behavior of the deceased was due to
excessive drunkenness, the protection under Section 85 held not available.14

2. Onus to prove Intoxication

6 Jethuram v State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 at p. 243, 244 (DB)

7 Jethuram v State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 (DB)

8Samman Singh v. Emperor,AIR 1941 lah 454 (DB)

9 Wariam Singh v. Crown AIR 1926 Lah 428 : 27 Cri Lj 764

10 Basdeo v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 : Cri Lj 919

11 Ramsingh v.State of Gujarat (1985) 1 Guj LR 40

12 M.S.Satyanarayana v. State of A.P., 1995 Cri Lj 686 (AP) (DB)

13 Samman Singh v. Emperor,AIR 1941 lah 454 (DB)

14 Deba Dip v. State, 1994 Cri LJ NOC 154 (Ori)

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. 15

3. Mistake while drunk

The taking of drink could not itself be excuse of commission of a crime and it was not a defence
that a man’s mind was so affected by drink that he more readily gave way to passion or that he
would not have acted as he did had he been sober nor will drunkenness be defence in case of
strict liability, since if an honest and reasonable mistake by sober person cannot afford a defence,
a mistake while drunk cannot do so.16

4. Implications of Section 85

Merely because the accused claimed to be drunk at the relevant point of time could never be
taken an excuse for his brutual and diabolic acts and the plea of drunkenness did not in any way
dilute not because of what is provided in section 85, IPC but because one after the another five
were taken and that too of four young children.17

5. Intoxication- Proving of

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 the degree of his intoxication to show that

15 Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) Crimes 62 (SC)

16 Shankar Jaisware v. State of West Bengal 2007 Cri Lj3271 (SC)

17 Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) Crimes 62 (SC)

his mind was so affected by drink that he was not in a position to form any intent essential to
constitute the crime. 18

6. Rape case- Defence of Intoxication

Where the evidence of the prosecutor corroborated by the evidence of her husband that the
accused came all of a sudden under influence of liquor and grabbed her and raped her and there
was no evidence that the accused was under intoxication and he was unable to know the nature
of his act, the accused was not held entitled to the benefit of section 85 of IPC.19

7. State of Intoxication

What is the state of 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. 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.-
In re : Balaswami, AIR 1953 Mad 827. Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the commission
of offence.

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 on the record to show that the accused was
under the influence of liquor at the time he commited the offence. So, no question of

18 Dasa Kandha v. The State 1976 Cr Lj 2010

19 Prem Singh v. State, 2007 Cri LJ (NOC) 245 (Uttranchal)

drunkenness arises.20. It must be proved that the accused was so much intoxicated at the time of
the incident that he was beside his mind altogether for the time being, otherwise he would not get
the benefit of Section 85 and Section 86.21

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. 22

Synopsis

1. Scope

2. Requisite to claim benefit of Section 86

3. Benefit of Section 86- Ruled out.

Scope
Section 86 is an exception to Section 85. Section 86 does not permit intoxication of a lesser
degree.23

But so far as intent or intention is concerned, the same must be gathered from the attending
general circumstances of the case paying due regards to the degree of intoxication. Was the man
besides 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 to do, the court can apply the rule that a man is presumed

20 Sohan Manhi v. State, AIR 1970 Pat 303: 1970 Cr Lj 245

21 Babu Sadashiv Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 1986 Cr Lj 739 (Bom).

22 Indian Penal Code, 1860

23 State of Maharashtra v. Ashok, 1987 Cri LJ 1416 (Bom.)(DB)

to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts.24 Self- induced intoxication in a case of man
slaughter is no defence.25 Where the accused in drunken state caused fracture of skull bone by
striking stick on the head of the deceased resulting in death, accused intended to cause such
injury as was likely to cause death, was held guilty under section 304, Part I, though charge
under 302 had not been framed against the accused.26

The onus of establishing the plea under Section 86 lies on the accused.27

Where the accused was heavily drunk and was incapable of forming the requisite intent which
could bring his act within the ambit of Section 302, in view of the provisions of Section 86, the
accused could be imputed with the knowledge of his act.28

Where in case of rape, there was no evidence showing any signs of drunkenness or alcohol
having been consumed by accused at the time of committing offence of rape, benefit of Section
could not be extended to him. His defence plea was rejected and he was convicted for offence of
rape under Section 376, IPC. 29

There is no evidence available on the record as to quantum of alcohol consumed by the appellant
except the observation of the witnesses that he was under the influence of liquor. No one stated
that he not in senses and has lost self- control. It was held that it is in evidence that immediately
after the incident he walked the distance to the house of a witness and concealed the weapon of
offence and wearing apparels. It could not as such be said that there was no intention on the part
of appellant and he was out of his senses on account of intoxication.30

24 Basdeo v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 : Cri Lj 919

25 Manmath v. State of Orissa, 1989 (10)Crimes 17 (Ori)

26 Padika Janu v. State of Orissa, 1989 Cri Lj NOC 104 (Ori)

27 Dasa Kandhu v. State, 1976 Cut LT 499

28 Entrique F. Rio v. State, 1975 Cri LJ 1337 (Goa)

29 Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of A.P., 1997 (2) Crimes 19 (AP)(DB)

30 Sheikh Falser v. State 2006 Cri Lj 1105 at p. 1107 (1107)

It is clear that 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. 31

Requisite to claim benefit of Section 86

The person claiming benefit under Section 86 has to prove that thing which intoxicated him was
administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.32

Benefit of Section 86 – Ruled out.

In the instant case the husband under influence of liquor beating his wife and throwing burning
lamp on her face and he himself taking liquor held not entitled to claim benefit under Section
86.33

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

31 Shankar jaisware v. State of West Bengal, 2007 Cri LJ 3271 (SC)

32 Gautam Bhila Ahire v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 Cri LJ 4073 (Bom.)

33 Gautam Bhila Ahire v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 Cri LJ 4073 (Bom.)

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.

CHAPTER-4: CASE LAWS

Voluntary intoxication and crimes of basic intent
For crimes that require only basic intent, intoxication is no defence. The case law is affirmed
in DPP v Majewski 34[1976]. The accused had taken barbiturates, amphetamines and alcohol and
subsequently assaulted a publican and three policemen. He was convicted of assault and his
following appeal was dismissed.
The judgement from Majewski was that, if the offence charged is one of basic intent, the accused
may be convicted of it if he was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of committing the offence,
even though, because of intoxication, he did not have the mens rea normally required for the
conviction of that offence, and despite the fact that he was in a state of automatism. Additionally,
the House of Lords recognised in Majewski that, for a person charged with an offence of basic
intent, the prosecution does not need to prove the mens rearequired for that offence and the
accused can be convicted simply on proof that he committed the offence (the actus reus).

This leads on to the complex concept of recklessness. Certain crimes, such as attempted murder,
can only be committed intentionally; others may be committed recklessly. The distinction is
important. A distinction must also exist between recklessness and negligence, so that the law can
punish reckless wrongdoing, but, apart from certain crimes, it can exempt negligent wrongdoing
from criminal liability.

The type of recklessness recognised by the majority of the House of Lords is termed ‘Caldwell-
type’ recklessness following their Lordships’ decision in R v Caldwell [1982]. An individual is
Caldwell-type reckless with regard to a particular risk that attends his actions if the risk is
obvious to an ordinary prudent person who has not given thought to the possibility of there being

34 [1976] 2 AII ER 142 (HL)

any such risk, or if the individual has recognised that there is some risk and has nevertheless
persisted in his actions.
The effect of the ruling in Majewski that proof of mens rea is not required when an accused who
is voluntarily intoxicated is charged with an offence of basic intent is reduced when Caldwell-
type recklessness suffices for that offence. In R v Caldwell, Lord Diplock took the view that
classification of offences into those of basic or specific intent was irrelevant where Caldwell-type
recklessness sufficed for mens rea. The distinction between such offences is important, however,
if the intoxicated person who is charged with an offence of basic intent has thought about a
possible risk and wrongly concluded it to be negligible. In this case, a loophole in Caldwell-type
recklessness (termed ‘the lacuna’) means that he could not be convicted of recklessness. Indeed,
he would be acquitted unless convicted under the Majewski ruling on the basis that the actus
reus of an offence of basic intent has been committed.

Basdev v. State of Pepsu35



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

35 AIR 1956 SC 488

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 Basdev 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.
 CHAPTER-5: 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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY



PRIMARY SOURCES

Indian Penal Code, 1860

SECONDARY SOURCES-BOOKS & ARTICLES


Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, (New Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2002).

P.S.A. Pillai, Criminal Law, (New Delhi: Butterworths, 2000).

K.D.Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (New Delhi: Butterworths, 1999).


Articles

Ewan Paton, “Reformulating the Intoxication Rules: The Law Commission’s Report”, [1995]
Crim. L.R. 387.

Graham Virgo, “The Law Commission Consultation Paper on Intoxication and Criminal
Liability”, [1993] Crim. L.R. 420.

Spencer, JR (1994) 'Involuntary Intoxication is a Defence' 53 Cambridge Law Journal

Glanville Williams, “Involuntary intoxication”, (1989) 105 L.Q.R. 387.