Mistake of Fact: Section 76&79

Created @August 27, 2021 1:23 AM

Last
@August 27, 2021 10:30 PM
edited

Materials Pappu_vs_Damodaran_And_Ors_on_1_September_1967.PDF State_Of_Orissa_vs_Ram_Bahadur_Thapa_on_9_Nov

Module Exceptions

Reviewed

Type Lecture

Section 76

💡 Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law.—Nothing is an offence which is done
by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes
himself to be, bound by law to do it.

💡 lustrations:
(a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has com‐
mitted no offence.
(b) A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and, after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y,
arrests Z. A has committed no offence.

Section 79

💡 Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law.—Nothing is an offence which is
done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in
good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.

💡 Illustration: A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in
good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes Z, in order to
bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-
defence.

PSA Pillai :
A court has to determine his guilt on the basis of the 'believed' facts and not on the 'real' facts

Mistake can be an extenuating factor provided:

(1) that the state of things believed to exist would, if true, have justified the act done;
(2) that the mistake must be reasonable;

(3) the mistake must relate to fact and not to law.

Mistake of Fact: Section 76&79 1

 Superstitious belief will be no defence.
Everybody is presumed, rather duty bound, to know the law. Ignorance of those things, which one is bound to know, therefore, does
not excuse him. It is merely a legal fiction, which has been created for the sake of convenience and out of necessity. Therefore, a
mistake of law, reasonable or unreasonable, even in good faith, does not operate as an exonerating factor. However, it may operate
as a mitigating factor.
Where the orders of the superior authority are illegal, it will not save the subordinate officer from liability. Where a police constable
shoots and kills another under the orders of his superior officer, he cannot escape criminal liability because the order was obviously
illegal and he was aware of the illegality of the order.

Private persons who are bound by law to assist the police under s 37 of the CrPC are also protected under s.76 of the IPC.

Good Faith:

Section 52 , IPC , defines the term 'good faith'. It reads: 'Nothing is said to be done or believed in 'good faith' which is done or
believed without due care and attention.

If the intention is honest, then even if the act was negligent, it is deemed to be done in 'good faith'. However, under the Code,
the emphasis is on whether the person has done an act with due care and attention. So, if a person, howsoever honest in his
intention, blunders, he cannot get the protection under the IPC because apart from an honest intention, he is also expected to
act with due care and caution.

What is due care and attention depends on the position in which a man finds himself. The
law does not expect the same standard of care and attention from all persons regardless of the position they occupy.

Lectures:
@August 11, 2021

Effect of Section 6 of IPC?

💡 Section 6 of IPC: Definitions in the Code to be understood subject to exceptions.—Throughout this Code every
definition of an offence, every penal provision, and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision, shall
be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the Chapter entitled “General Exceptions”, though those
exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision, or illustration.

If one can show that his act comes under the ambit of the "general exceptions", criminal liability would no be imposed upon him.
Issue in using " Person" in IPC- As person also includes Companies too.

Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act is important for a deeper discussion

💡 Section 105 of IEA : Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.—When a person is accused of
any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions
in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same
Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.

Standard of proof in general exceptions: Preponderance of probabilities

Section 76
Parts of S.76:

1. Nothing is an offence done by a person when bound by law.

2. Nothing is an offence done by a person who, by reason of mistake of fact and not of law in good faith believes that he is bound
by law.

Mistake of Fact: Section 76&79 2

 What do you mean by bound by law?

(No answer was given)

What do you mean by Justification and Excuse? And under which classification you would put s.76?
Fatema: s.76 is under Justification
Sir: It is about act and the actor; In justification we justify the act and in Excuse we are excusing the actor.

Mock situation: If a mental person is causing ruckus. We 'excuse' the person because he doesn't have Mens rea.
Self-defence is a justification.
It becomes complicated when excuse comes under justification.

State of West Bengal vs Shew Mangal Singh

The latter part of s76 is only discussing mistake of fact. The former part is not discussing mistake of fact.

@August 12, 2021

Pappu vs Damodaran

"A claim of right as to ownership or possession of property may stem from a mistake of law or a
mistake of fact or of both. Ownership or possession in a given case is a mixed question of law and fact
and if the mistake relate." exclusively to facts, it will negative mens rea Will it make any difference if the
mistake relates to the law? Suppose, the mistake as to ownership or possession results from a mistake
of law Can a person plead that mistake and contend that although ignorance of law is no excuse yet,
he was misled into thinking that the law was so and bona fide believed although unreasonably, in his
title and possession and did the act? I think, even if the mistake arose on account of a
misunderstanding of the law that the property belonged to the accused or was in their possession and
in that belief they went and destroyed the fence, It cannot be said that they would have the necessary
intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant, or the knowledge that that would be the result of
their act."

"Ignorance of the criminal law is no excuse for an act done in violation of it. But, when a question arises
whether a person has a claim of right, ignorance or mistake of the civil law governing the matter would
become relevant and assume Importance as negativing mens rea. A person who puts forward a claim
of right founded on mistake or ignorance of civil law pertaining to the matter need not necessarily
establish that the mistake or ignorance arose in spite of reasonable diligence. The only thing necessary

Mistake of Fact: Section 76&79 3

 is that the mistake must be one which leads the accused to claim that he has a right to act as he does.
A mistake as to criminal law only will not give rise to a claim of right; an error as to civil law may do so."

In cases of Criminal law, Mistake of law in violation of it would not be a valid defence, but in cases of Civil law, Mistake of law can
be taken as a defence. Here, the defence would be an Excuse and not justification, as it negates Mens rea.

Why this differential treatment in Criminal law and civil law?

Because existence of a legal right is not determined by the criminal law, it only limits itself to classifying the offences and
defining them. It is in civil law where legal rights are ascertained.

Section 79
Dissection

Difference between Section 76 and 79?

s.76- bound by law

s.79- justified by law.

Difference between Bound by law and justified by law:

Bound by law- A duty is imposed by law/ he is obliged to a conduct under law

Justified by law- There may not be duty imposed on the person to do an act and the act done is justified by law, it's not an
aberration from law.

Eg. If a mob is attacking a person, I am not bound by law to help that person but if I choose to help, it would be justified by law.

@August 13, 2021

Difference between Strict and Absolute liability?

There are no defences for Absolute liability. Absolute liability is subset of strict liability, here there are no exceptions available.

What is the reason for no exceptions available in Absolute liability?

(Sir was not satisfied with any of the answers)

What if an insane person commits a crime should we hold him liable ?

(Sir left this unanswered and moved on)

State of Orissa vs Ram Bhadur Thappa

You can peruse the case summary by following the link below:

Case analysis: state of Orissa vs. Ram Bahadur Thapa

State of Orissa Vs Ram Bahadur Thapa - AIR 1960 Ori 161, 1960 CriLJ 1349 State of Orissa. Appellant v/s Ram
Bahadur Thapa...Respondent Summary Of The Facts: The state of Orissa made an appeal against the order
passed by the sessions judge of Mayurbhanj for acquitting the respondent in a case for murder under section
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5852-case-analysis-state-of-orissa-vs-ram-bahadur-thapa.htm
l

Good faith
clearly defined under section 52 of IPC. Section 52 of Indian penal code says that:

Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention

The main feature of the provisions are the words due care and attention. The importance of the words
due care and attention was highlighted in the case of Emperor v. Abdool Wadood Ahmed, where a
person acted with the injurious intention would come under acting without due care and attention. The
person can be protected under section 79 of IPC only when he acted on good faith and good faith
under section 52 is said that the person should acted with due care and attention.

Mistake of Fact: Section 76&79 4

 Case analysis discussion
Chirag : In that panic situation, he was sacred for his life. We can't expect him to act reasonably.

Sir: The manner in which the accused attacked limits the argument of Good faith.

Aditya: Under Good faith, the standard of due care must be judged according to the capacity and intelligence of he person.
Sir : I want to know the reasonableness of the conduct, how is the court assessing it?

Aashish: The due care argument will be dependent on the fact that, if he had time to determine whether there was a ghost or it was
a human. But, the accused was so enriched in his beliefs of ghosts that he didn't consider the possibility of a human standing there,
And thus he acted.

Sir: Reasonableness is satisfied?

Aashish: No, as the court is saying that standard of due care will be dependent on the capacity of the accused, which differs from
case to case.

Dissenting opinion in the case: But when we look into the facts of the case the respondent started to attack the people thinking of
ghosts and did not stop even when he heard them screaming. In this kind of circumstance there arise a question whether the
defence under section 79 of IPC can be given even in the cases where there exists certain proof that shows the pre-emption of
attack and gross negligence by the accused.

Mistake of Fact: Section 76&79 5

 Necessity: Section 81
Created @August 27, 2021 12:33 AM

Last edited @August 27, 2021 7:00 PM

Materials

Module Exceptions

Reviewed

Type Lecture

💡 Section 81 in The Indian Penal Code

81. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent
other harm.—Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with
the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal
intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or
avoiding other harm to person or property. Explanation.—It is question of fact
in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a
nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with
the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm.

Section 81 , IPC, embodies the principle that where the accused chooses lesser
evil, in order to avert the bigger, then he is immune. The genesis of this principle
emanates from two maxims: quod necessitas non habet leegem (necessity
knows no law) and necessitas vincit legem (necessity overcomes the law).

Mens Rea

Sections 80 and 81 are analogous provisions, the former dealing with accidents and
the latter with inevitable accidents. However, there is a difference as to the nature
and extent of mens rea prescribed under both these sections. Section 80
stipulates the absence of criminal intention as well as criminal knowledge.
But Section 81 stipulates the absence of criminal intention alone.

Necessity: Section 81 1
 In order to attract Section 81, it is necessary to show that the act complained of was
done in good faith in order to prevent or avoid greater harm to the person or
property of others.

The harm caused need not necessarily be lesser than the harm averted, though this
question would become material when judging the good faith of an act.

Self-defense vs Necessity

💡 killing a person in self defense may appear to be an example of necessity.

While self defense may overlap necessity, the two are not the same. Private
defense operates only against aggressors. Generally, the aggressors are
wrongdoers, while the persons against whom act ion is taken by necessity,
may not be aggressors or wrongdoers. Unlike necessity, private defense
involves no balancing of values

In R v Dudley and Stephens, 33 the crew of a yacht, 'Mignonette',

were cast away in a storm and were compelled to put into an open
boat, which had no water or food. On the twentieth day, having had
nothing to eat for eight days, and being 1,000 miles away from land,
two of the crew (Dudley and Stephens) agreed that the cabin boy,
who was likely to die first, should be killed to feed themselves upon
his body; and one of them carried out the plan. The men ate his
flesh and drank his blood for four days. They were then rescued by
a passing vessel and were subsequently charged with murder.

The principles that can be deduced from the Dudley and Stephens are:
(1) self-preservation is not an absolute necessity;
(2) no person has a right to take another's life to preserve his own, and
(3) there is no necessity that justifies homicide
Where necessity may not justify totally the act ion of the accused in situations
mentioned in the Holmes and the Dudley, the compulsion of circumstances may go

Necessity: Section 81 2
 strongly in alleviation of the guilt of the accused and in mitigating the sentence of the
accused.

Necessity: Section 81 3
 Infancy: Section 82&83
Created @August 17, 2021 1:07 AM

Last
@August 27, 2021 12:40 AM
edited

Materials State_Of_Orissa_vs_Bhagaban_Barik_on_2_April,_1987.pdf Sahadevan_vs_State_Of_Kerala,_Represented_By_on_

Module Exceptions

Reviewed

Type Lecture

Table of contents:
Sections
Juvenile Justice Act
Determination of age of an accused juvenile

@August 16, 2021

Sections

💡 Section 82: Act of a child under seven years of age.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years
of age

💡 Section 83: Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding.—Nothing is an offence which is
done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to
judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

Section 83 is not an absolute provision, if the person is mature enough to understand the nature of his act then liability can be
attached.

IPC is allowing criminal liability above 12 years

Juvenile Justice Act must be seen in tune with section 83.

Section 82 presumes that a child below seven years is doli incapax, i.e., he is incapable of committing a crime and cannot be
guilty of any offence.
This presumption emanates from the recognition of the fact that he lacks the adequate mental ability to understand the nature
and consequences of his act and thereby an ability to form the required mens rea

Section 83 presumes that a child above 7 but below 12 years of age is doli capax, i.e., capable of committing a crime
depending upon his maturity of understanding. But this presumption is rebuttable. It can be rebutted by proof of 'mischievous
discretion' of the child. The prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the child caused an act us reus
with mens rea and that he knew that his conduct was not merely mischievous but 'wrong'.

💡 The presumption of innocence of a child is based on the principle of immaturity of intellect. 'The younger the child in age,
the lesser the possibility of being corrupt', seems to be its premise. This is to say, 'malice makes up for age,' i.e., quia
malitia supplet aetatem. Hence, as age advances, the maxim loses force.

Infancy: Section 82&83 1

 💡 A combined reading of ss 82 and 83, which respectively confer immunity from criminal liability to a child 'under seven' and
'above seven', reveals that criminal liability of an infant of 'seven' years is left out. However, Hari Singh Gour, with a
view to overcoming the lacuna, suggests that such an infant 'should be dealt under s 82 rather than under s 83' of the
Code.

Juvenile Justice Act

What is Juvenile Justice Act?

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is the major legal text on Child Protection in India. The JJ Act guarantees the security, the
protection, the education and the well-being of the children in need in India.

There have been specifications made regarding the Juveniles who are between the age of 16-18, if any kind of crime is
committed by them then after due perusal of their mental capacity, they can be tried as an adult.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Wikipedia

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been passed by Parliament of India amidst
intense controversy, debate and protest on many of its provisions by Child Rights fraternity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenile_Justice_(Care_and_Protection_of_Children)_Act,_2015

http://cara.nic.in/PDF/JJ%20act%202015.pdf

JJ ACT pdf

Why the legislature introduced JJ Act or the legislative intent?

Intent of welfare rather than deterance

WHY should we give protection to these children as IPC is saying we can exempt responsibility between the age of 7-12
years barring some cases?
Varsha: Only a certain age of people should be given protection. Somewhere a line must be drawn.
Sir: Mapping the intention is very difficult even in case of a child, as there is no instrument to assess the intention of
someone.

Aditya: Minors, no matter what their age, are still going to have a life to live and a punishment at such an age would
impact them negatively. Minors mustn't be judged with the same pedestal.
Sir gives an illustration about a minor of 17 years of age who sought revenge against his girlfriend by throwing acid on
her because she had broken up with him. Should he be given protection?

Aditya: Puberty should be the criteria. As during this phase there is lot of hormonal changes going on. They are
impressionable. Also, by the age of 18 most children have completed their schooling and are able to understand and
grasp......(Sir ends class after commenting that It wasn't an answer but a speech)

Why concerned with negative influence with less than 18 years age? how is this age determined? why is it
determined?

How should a juvenile offender be arrested?

As per s 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, any juvenile accused

of a bailable or non-bailable offence, unless his release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or
expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, is to be released on bail with or without surety. He cannot be put in a
police station or jail. However, if in the interest of the juvenile, the Juvenile Justice Board is of the opinion that the juvenile

Infancy: Section 82&83 2

 should not be released on bail, he should be kept in an Observation Home or a place of safety. And his parent or guardian
must be immediately informed

@August 17, 2021

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAAEXoOflPo

Sir asks us about our opinion on Tharoor's view

Sir asks is it correct to equate children of pre-2000 and post-2000 considering the various scientific advancements and in the era of
information?
Sid: Greater access to information shouldn't be a criteria of judging the maturity and morality. As we cannot establish how far this
access affects the morality of child.
Sir asks should the children who committed heinous crimes be given protection? considering the fact that they knew the nature of
their act. Won't they be a threat to the society ?

💡 Difference between Juvenile and minor: In general sense both the term has same meaning but however difference lies
in context of implications in the eyes of law. Minor implies young and teen persons whereas juvenile either indicates
immature person or young offenders.

Determination of age of an accused juvenile

How is this age determined?
The Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 was amended in 2015 with a provision allowing for Children in Conflict with Law (CCL) to be
tried as adults under certain circumstances. The Act defines a child as someone who is under age 18. For a CCL, age on the
date of the offence is the basis for determining whether he or she was a child or an adult.
Three issues :

1. Relevant date- date of commission of act or date of trial.

In Pratap Singh v State of Jharkhand, the Constitution Bench held that the reckoning date for the determination of the age
of the juvenile is the date of an offence committed by him and not the date when he is produced before the Juvenile Board
or the court. It accordingly ruled that 'the law laid down' in Umesh Chandra case is the 'correct law' and not the ruling in
Arnit Das case.

2. Nature of Evidence- for proving the age of juvenile.

If school admission certificate and academic records indicating age of the accused child
are doubtful and offer speculations about his real age, medical evidence based on scientific investigation receives
precedence over the school record.
The material evidence to establish the age of the accused has to be produced before the trial court, and it is ordinarily the
duty of the trial court to determine the
age of the accused before pronouncing the judgment.

If two views are possible on an evidence, it should lean in favor of holding the accused to be a juvenile in borderline cases.

3. Stage of plea that accused child is juvenile is taken.

Plea of juvenility was raised for the first time
before the Apex court in Gopinath Ghosh vs State of West Bengal
SC did not allow the technical objection that the plea could not be raised for the first time before the SC in view of the
beneficial provision of WB Children Act read with Article 39(f) of the Constitution which provides that the State shall direct its

Infancy: Section 82&83 3

 policy towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in healthy manner and in conditions of
freedom and dignity.

Interesting article-

18: The Stepping Stone to Adulthood....or not?

People continue to mature and grow as individuals throughout our lifetimes (at least ideally). So the 45 year
old you would probably not only be better equipped to make decisions than the 25 year old version, but also
in all likelihood be a very different person, both literally (in the replacing of your body's physical makeup in
https://qrius.com/18-the-age-that-people-are-considered-adults/

Infancy: Section 82&83 4

 Insanity: Sec 84
Created @August 25, 2021 7:18 PM

Last edited @August 27, 2021 7:00 PM

Materials Rajendra_vs_State_Of_Rajasthan_on_6_January_2004.PDF

Module Exceptions

Reviewed

Type Lecture

Section 84

💡 Section 84: Act of a person of unsound mind.—Nothing is an offence which

is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness
of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing
what is either wrong or contrary to law.

For exempting criminal liability the ingredients are:

Unsound mind

Incapable of knowing the nature of the act

Act should be wrong or contrary to law.

Act should be wrong or contrary to law

Rajendra vs State of Rajasthan

The question that requires consideration is whether the

appellate at the time of commission of offence suffered from

Insanity: Sec 84 1
 insanity? And whether it was legal insanity so as to give the
appellant the benefit of Section 84 IPC

There are legal insanity and medical insanity.

To get the benefit of Section 84 IPC the accused must establish

any one of the three elements necessary under the section.
Incapability of knowing (1) the nature of the act, or (2) that the
act was contrary to law or (3) that it was wrong.

How to interpret the latter part of section 84?is it correct to identify three ingredients
or there should be two ingredients?
The court is saying that any one ingredient will be sufficient to get the benefit.
Contrary to law means legal wrong thus the other wrong would be Moral Wrong. As
two words won't be used to convey the same meaning.
Ashiruddin Ahmed vs The King:

Of the three elements necessary to be established under

Section 84, any one of which must be established by an
accused to obtain the benefit of the provisions, it appears that
first, the nature of the act, was clearly known to the accused;
secondly, that be knew that the act was contrary to law, or we
have said this was probably known to him. But third element on
which the case really turned is whether the accused knew that
the act was wrong.

Siddhapal Kamala Yadav vs State Of Maharashtra

Under Section 84 IPC, a person is exonerated from liability for

doing an act on the ground of unsoundness of mind if he, at the
time of doing the act, is either incapable of knowing (a) the

Insanity: Sec 84 2
 nature of the act, or (b) that he is doing what is either wrong or
contrary to law. The accused is protected not only when, on
account of insanity, he was incapable of knowing the nature of
the act, but also when he did not know either that the act was
wrong or that it was contrary to law, although he might know the
nature of the act itself. He is, however, not protected if he knew
that what he was doing was wrong, even if he did not know that
it was contrary to law, and also if he knew that what he was
doing was contrary to law even though he did not know that it
was wrong.

Which one is better? the three ingredient test of Ashiruddin or Two

ingredient test of Siddhapal?
The ambit of Ashiruddin judgement is wide enough to let an accused escape
liability. Whereas in Siddhapal, the ambit is narrow, as you must prover a wrong
then only the gates to "contrary to law" would be open for you.

Is section 84 allowing the three ingredient method ?

Sunchit: The reading of the section shows that there are two main phrases,
had the legislature intended to use three ingredients , there would've been
three phrases; Also, the use of " Incapable of knowing' renders "Either..or"
as " Neither..nor"

SC is inclined to the ratio that, there are two Ingredients. And either one of
these ingredients must be established to get protection of Section 84.

Insanity: Sec 84 3
 Intoxication: Sec 85&86
Created @August 19, 2021 1:11 PM

Last edited @August 27, 2021 7:00 PM

Materials Basdev_vs_The_State_Of_Pepsu_on_17_April,_1956.pdf

Module Exceptions

Reviewed

Type Lecture

Table Of Contents
Provisions
Section 86
Basudev vs The state of PEPSU

Provisions

💡 Section 85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxica‐

tion 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 thing which intoxicated him was
administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Intoxication: Sec 85&86 1

 💡 Section 86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge
committed by one who is intoxicated.—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.

An accused, in order to defend himself, must prove to the court that:

He was involuntarily intoxicated; against his will and knowledge.

He was incapable of knowing the nature of his act

His act mustn't be either wrong or contrary to the law.

Section 86
Presumption: The person intoxicated would not have the knowledge about the act he
committed.
Section 86 is for Voluntary intoxication.
In voluntary intoxication, Knowledge is attributed while intention is determined from the
facts.
If intention plus knowledge is proved then guilty of a higher degree of offence, if only
knowledge lower degree of offence

The legislature is deleting the word intent, why?

Knowledge doesn't implies having intention.
Knowledge is presumed in Section 86 but intention is not used in the latter part of
the section because Intention is gathered from the general circumstances of the
case paying due regard to the degree of Intoxication

Basudev vs The state of PEPSU

Intoxication: Sec 85&86 2

 A man who voluntarily consumed intoxicating substance in a marriage party, shoots a
minor because he didn't move from a chair after the accused told him to do so.
We can presume only knowledge according to section 86 but we wouldn't presume
Intention. As it becomes very difficult to ascertain Intention of a person. But, this
Intention can be adduced from the circumstances, facts and evidences.
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
Facts which the court determined to attach intention :

capable of moving himself independently and talking coherently

He made a choice for his own seat

After shooting at the deceased he did attempt to get away.

when secured he realized what he had done and thus requested the witnesses to
be forgiven saying that it bad happened from him.

No evidence that while in police custody he was supported by physically by the

police.

Intoxication: Sec 85&86 3