Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow

Final Draft

Project Topic: “Intoxication, A brief analysis of Sec 85 and 86 of Indian

Penal Code”

Submitted To:
Mr. Malay Panday
Assistant Professor (Law)
Dr. R.M.L.N.L.U., Lucknow

Submitted By:
Deepak Kumar Rav
Enrollment no. 59
4th Semester
Acknowledgement
During preparation for this project I was immensely helped by all the facilities of Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohiya National Law University.

I would also like to thank my teacher Mr. Malay Panday for giving me the opportunity to
choose this topic and for providing me the creative freedom to go upon this project as I like.

Finally, I’d like to thank my friends and batch mates for their valuable suggestions and
assistance.

2
 Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION TO INTOXICATION....................................................................4

DRUNKENESS............................................................................................................4

SECTIONS FOR INTOXICATION IN IPC................................................................5

WAYS OF INTOXICATION.......................................................................................6

TYPES OF INTOXICATION
(a) VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION......................................................................7
(b) INVOLUNTARY INTOXIACTION..................................................................8

ONUS OF PROOF........................................................................................................9

CASE LAWS
(a) Basudev v. State of Pepsu......................................................................10
(b) Venkappa Kannappa Chowdhari v. State of Karnataka………………...11
(c) Macherla Balaswamy of Guntur v. State of Tamil Nadu……………….11
(d) The public prosecutor v. Budipiti Devasikamani...................................13
(e) Sheikh Falsar v. State 2006....................................................................15

CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................17

3
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. 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.

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 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

4
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 thathe was out of his mind for that period
of time 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 comprehended as the condition of a man when he has expended liquor or
any medication that progressions his point of view and tends him to act in a way, that he
would not acted in, in the event that he was not affected by that specific substance.
Intoxication and tipsiness are two words that can be utilized bury variably. A man who is
affected by liquor does not for the most part think before he says or accomplishes something.
The level of liquor the individual has devoured additionally assumes an imperative part in his
conduct, by and large individuals who has expend liquor to a vast degree are the ones who act
in a wrong way. They are like individuals of unsound personality. They don't have the
foggiest idea about the results of the demonstration that they connect with themselves in, they
may likewise not realize that the demonstration that they are doing is illicit and would be
rebuffed for the same. However, there are likewise situations when the "inebriated
individual" who has carried out a wrongdoing would not be rebuffed, this is the point at
which the intoxication has happened automatically and the weight of verification that he was
inebriated without wanting to lies in the hands of the denounced. In this way, in this paper we
will examine in insight about the sorts of intoxication, the weight of evidence, how it is
analyzed and few of the point of interest cases with respect to the same.

SECTIONS AND PROVISIONS

Sec 85 and Sec 86 of the Indian Penal Code manage intoxication.

Sec 85 - Act of a man unequipped for judgment by reason of intoxication caused without
wanting to.

5
The arrangement says " Nothing is an offense which is finished by a man who, at the season
of doing it, is, by the reason of intoxication, unequipped for knowing the idea of the
demonstration, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or in spite of law; gave that the thing
which inebriated him ws controlled to him without his insight or without wanting to."

This segment implies that if a man accomplishes something illegal i.e, unlawful in nature
since he is inebriated without knowing the idea of the demonstration he is exempted from
liabilities and the demonstration done by him isn't considered as an offense given that he was
inebriated without wanting to that is without his insight.

Sec 86 - Offense requiring a specific purpose or information conferred by one who is

inebriated.

The arrangement says that " In situations where a demonstration done isn't an offense unless
finished with a specific information or purpose, a man who does the demonstration in a
condition of intoxication might be laible to be managed as though he had an indistinguishable
learning from he would have had on the off chance that he had not been inebriated, unless the
thing which inebriated him was directed to him without his insight or without wanting to.

This implies if a man has a goal to do the demonstration even before he was inebriated and
committs the demonstration after intoxication, it will mean under the eyes of law that the
demonstration was done like as though he was not inebriated. This is substantial as a
protection just if the intoxication was automatic.

WAYS IN WHICH A PERSON CAN BE INTOXICATED

A man can be inebriated in various ways, however the most widely recognized way would
either be medications or liquor. Liquor intoxication is other savvy called intoxication.
Alternate kinds of intoxication incorporate:

Substance intoxication
Alcohol intoxication

6
Opioid intoxication (Toxidrome) - 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 overdose and barbiturate overdose)
Cocaine intoxication
Caffeine Intoxication
Hallucinogen intoxication
Stimulant intoxication
Water intoxication
Drug overdose
Inhalant intoxication
Intoxication (album)

Intoxication can happen in any of the previously mentioned ways. In any case, if the
individual that has been inebriated carries out a wrongdoing, he will be held at risk contingent
on how he was inebriated. The aim ( mens rea ) behind the demonstration will likewise
assume an imperative part. In the event that the individual had the goal to carry out a
wrongdoing before he was affected by the substance and was exceptionally very much aware
of the legitimate outcomes and perpetrates the wrongdoing subsequent to devouring the
inebriated substance intentionally he will be held at risk. Be that as it may, if the individual
carries out the wrongdoing in the wake of expending the inebriated substance without the
information of the lawful consequnces and the demonstration itself, the case will be
distinctive in light of the fact that here it must be considered if the individual was inebriated
intentionally or automatically. We will now talk about deliberate and automatic intoxication.

TYPES OF INTOXICATION

Intoxication can be of two types:

Voluntary intoxication –
This is the place the individual who expends the inebriated substance devours it with full
information and by his own will and wish wihtout any impulse of others. Despite the fact that
deliberate intoxication implies that somebody has devoured inebriating substances with their
own unrestrained choice, he may in any case have a resistance to the offense with which he is

7
charged. The plan if there should be an occurrence of a wrongdoing is imperative and despite
the fact that a man perhaps willfully inebriated, the very reality that he can't frame the
required aim works to support him. The seriousness of the discipline is decreased because of
this protection; for example, an individual will be rebuffed for the wrongdoing of homicide as
opposed to the more genuine wrongdoing of murder. A wrongdoing requiring particular
expectation might be diminished to one requiring essential aim. An intoxicant does not have
any different 'class' but rather it alludes to any substance, which affects the cognizance or the
basic leadership limit of a person.Acts done under such conditions are not exempted from any
risk. He should be considered to have done the demonstration that was illegal like as though
he was not inebriated, the learning of the inebriated can not the slightest bit be of protection
yet the goal of the individual is to be respected relying on the circumstance of the case. As a
general rule goal and information consolidate. Expectation is something which is provoked
by intention and learning is an attention to the results of the demonstration. So if the
individual is said to have adequate information in regards to the demonstration he is likewise
said to have the expectation. On the off chance that the individual knew before he was
inebriated that a demonstration he wills result in death (information) and confers the
demonstration in the wake of being inebriated willfully he will be rebuffed under IPC.

Involuntary intoxication
Instead of intentional, automatic intoxication is the point at which the individual has been
inebriated without wanting to and learning. This fills in as a guard to the blamed in light of
the fact that the was inadequate for knowing the idea of the demonstration. A man looking for
insurance of sec 86 needs to build up :

that he was unequipped for knowing the idea of the demonstration or acts conferred

that he didnt realize that he was accomplishing something in opposition to law

that the thing which inebriated to him was againsr his will/without his assent.

Segment 85 applies just in instances of automatic intoxication (tipsiness). Deliberate

intoxication is no reason for the commission of the wrongdoing.

8
Where the blamed couldn't demonstrate that he was affected by alcohol at the season of the
commission of the offense, the advantage of Section 85 was not given.

Circumstances where a man can't assert the advantage of Sec 85 of IPC

(I) Where the intoxication is managed to the blamed by stratagem or extortion for another, as
when blended with his nourishment or drink and given to him in certainty he is pardoned.

(ii) On this view if companions or relatives convince a man to drink somewhat more than he
can sensibly process, he can't whine that he was made to drink somewhat more than he can
sensibly process, he can't grumble that he was made to drink without wanting to.

(iii) Where a denounced takes alcohol to ease torment, it isn't an instance of automatic
tipsiness and the charged isn't secured by Section 85.

Tipsiness may in extraordinary cases result in daze, tremors or craziness whether

impermanent or perpetual and in the event that it is does as such, the wrongdoer will be held
not liable. Unless tipsiness either sums to unsoundness of mind in order to empower madness
to be

argued by method for safeguard, or the level of intoxication is, for example, to set up
insufficiency in the charged to shape the expectation important to constitute the wrongdoing,
tipsiness is neither a guard nor a concealment.

It isn't essential that in all cases automatic intoxication will be pardoned by the law. This can
be clarified with the assistance of the accompanying case laws.

ONUS OF PROOF ( Difficulty of proof )

The onus of evidence about reason of intoxication because of which the blamed had turned
out to be unable for having specific learning in shaping the specific expectation was on the
denounced. Fundamentally there are three recommendations as respects the extension and
ambit of Section 85, IPC. ( said under automatic intoxication). The typical assumption is that
a man expects the ordinary results of his demonstrations. For a situation where the guard is of
drinking it is for the blamed to lead proof to refute such assumption by giving confirmation of

9
his tipsiness and demonstrating the level of his intoxication to demonstrate that his psyche
was so influenced by drink that he was not in a situation to frame any plan fundamental to
constitute the wrongdoing. In this way, the burnden of proof that he/she carried out the
wrongdoing simply because of the nearness of liquor in their body and would not have done
as such notwithstanding it lies in the hands of the denounced. This weight of demonstrating
blamelessness isn't a simple errand.

The individual can't state that he submitted an error while he was smashed. The utilization of
the inebriated drink itself can't be a reason, if a man says that he was inebriated to a level that
he got perpetrating the wrongdoing simply after the liquor entered his body and that he would
have not acted in the way he did in the event that he were calm it won't remain as a guard.
Since if a genuine and sensible misstep by calm individual can't bear the cost of a resistance,
a mix-up while alcoholic can't do as such.

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 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 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, 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

10
injuries so intended to be inflicted, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. The accused was found guilty of murder and was convicted under Sec 302.

Venkappa Kannappa Chowdhari v. State of Karnataka

The charged, unruly by nature, was dependent on alcohol. The child of the denounced passed
on in an engine mischance. The blamed needed the remuneration sum for 10000, which was
for the sake of the charged's significant other. Upon the arrival of the choice, he returned
home alcoholic and requested that his significant other pull back the settled store sum. At the
point when his significant other declined to agree, he beat her, took a tin of lamp fuel oil,
sprinkled it on her and set her ablaze. His better half shouted and the neighbors took her to
the healing facility. A diminishing affirmation was recorded. The blamed took the request for
insufficiency because of intoxication u/s 85 IPC. His supplication was rejected in light of the
fact that he had willfully devoured liquor. He was indicted and condemned to life detainment.

Macherla Balaswamy of Guntur v. State of Tamil Nadu

Appealing party and Venkayya lived near each other in Guntur Town. Venkayya had an
insignificant shop by the street side. There was confirmation of some past sick feeling
between them over the buy of a house, which wa at last purchased by venkayya in rivalry
with the litigant. Venkayya said that he recorded a dissension against the litigant about a year
back before this offense, which was rejected.

As per the evidnece of Venkayya and two onlooker whom the trail court accepted, was that in
the vicinity of 6:30 and 7pm on 19-4-1950, Venkayya was ssitting on a seat close to his shop.
Appealing party all of a sudden drew close to him with a blade and began wounding him. At
the point when Venkayya's sister, who was sitting at the shop counter came to intercede, he
cut her in the stomach. Appealing party at that point fled. Venkayya and his sister
Bhudevamma were both taken to the Central Crime Station and an announcement was made
by Bhudevamma where she depicted that the appealing party was completely tanked however
there was no referance to that. The litigant was captured two days after the fact by a head
constable who additionally said he was in a tipsy condition notwithstanding amid the capture.

There can be most likely that notwithstanding the supposition of the assessors, who believed
that litigant was not blameworthy, the scholarly Sessions Judge has appropriately discovered

11
that appealing party it was who cut both Venkayya and Bhudevamma. Mr. Jayarama Ayyar
for the litigant has not genuinely tested this finding and focused his contention under the
watchful eye of the court on the supplication of intoxication, which he encouraged for this
situation would, under Section 88, Penal Code lessen the offense from murder to at fault
crime not adding up to kill.

The wounds on Venkayya may well have had deadly outcomes. He was wounded twice in the
chest and once in the guts. One chest wound was 11/2" profound and the stomach wound is
additionally portrayed as 11/2" profound. As the specialist has ousted these injuries were on
crucial parts of the body and on the off chance that they had entered somewhat further, they
may have made threat life. Bhudevamma had an infiltrating wound, not all that profound,
viz., 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/2" on the left half of the chest which sadly, in any case, punctured the
stomach. In outcome of this, she kicked the bucket in the healing facility the next night.

As we comprehend Mr. Jayaram Ayyar's contention it is that appealing party was in a

condition of intoxication and consequently under Section 86, Penal Code, he isn't
blameworthy of murder which requires a specific information or goal and would be at risk to
be managed as though he had just an indistinguishable learning from he would have had in
the event that he had not been inebriated.

Appealing party was been discovered liable under S. 302, Penal Code of the murder of
Bhudevamma by incurring on her a solitary cut in the belly when she mediated when the
litigant was wounding her sibling Venkayya . He has additionally been discovered
blameworthy under Section 324, Penal Cede, in regard of wounds he perpetrated en
Venkayya, albeit charged in that of endeavoring to kill him under Section 307, Penal Code.
He has been condemned to transportation forever and to two years thorough Imprisonment
separately.

In this specific case, we are very fulfilled that despite the fact that the litigant may have been
the more regrettable for alcohol, he knew impeccably welt what he was doing when he came
up to Venkayya with a blade and start wounding him, no doubt, lethally in his chest. The
scholarly Sessions Judge appears to us to have taken a tolerant and altruistic perspective of
the assault on Venkayya, which was extremely more dangerous than that on his sister
Bhudevamma, who interceded and got just a single wound in her stomach area. A man, who

12
continues wounding people in crucial parts, should obviously be dared to know the results of
his demonstrations and it isn't available to him to argue that he was so flushed at the time as
not to know or expect what he was doing. We have no wavering in dismissing this resistance
in light of the refinement amongst learning and expectation in Section 86, Penal Code, set
forward to lessen the offense to one under Section 304, Penal Code.

One of the observers to the cutting, told the researching officer that he saw the litigant and
Venkayya were battling before the wounding. The educated Sessions Judge gave this as one
reason for not passing on the litigant the outrageous punishment. All in all, we don't feel that
the outrageous punishment was called for this situation. We affirm the feelings of the litigant
and furthermore the sentences passed on him, however we think, as respects the assault on
P.W. 1, he ought to have been all the more effectively sentenced as charged under Section
307 Penal Code, rather than under Section 324, Penal Code.

The Public Prosecuter vs Budhipiti Devasikamani

The blamed for this situation was charged before the educated Agency Sessions Judge, East
Godavari, that he, on the nineteenth of June, 1926, conferred fiendishness by setting flame to
the covered working of the Board Elementary School at Gurtedu, with plan to annihilate the
same, an offense culpable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The arraignment case
is that the charged took a light from the kitchen, hurried to the building, put it to the cover
and afterward tossed it on the top of the kitchen and fled. The cover burst into flames and the
school building was totally annihilated. The scholarly Sessions Judge found that the charged
set fire to the school assembling however vindicated him on the ground that he was crazy
when he did it and was thusly unequipped for framing the goal or of having the learning
which shapes a fundamental element of the offense. Against this vindication the Crown has
displayed this interest. blamed is a smoker for ganja. There is proof to demonstrate that,
because of this horrible propensity, he used to undermine to beat his dad and kids, and used
to beat his significant other and flee into the woods, he would not take his nourishment
legitimately and when he was given it he would discard it. The proof likewise demonstrates
that he used to tear his fabric and meander about in the woodland. He was kept under
perception in the Central Tail at Rajahmundry for a fortnight. The Medical Officer who
inspected him found no motivation to articulate him crazy around then.

13
The educated Public Prosecutor fights that the supplication of madness isn't borne out by
these actualities, that and no more the proof would just demonstrate that the denounced used
to get intentionally inebriated by smoking ganja now and again and that deliberate
intoxication is no safeguard to a criminal demonstration.

The educated legal advisor for the denounced contends that the confirmation is such that
ganja smoking has initiated in the blamed insufficiency to comprehend the quality or nature
of his wrongful demonstration and has delivered in him a condition much the same as that of
daze tremens on account of a smashed man and that, regardless of whether this isn't the
situation, under Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code the charged can depend upon willful
intoxication in protection when he is charged as for this situation with an offense of which
'aim' is an essential fixing.

The onus of demonstrating the resistance managed by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code
unmistakably rests upon the charged. As respects the principal conflict, we have presumably
that the proof does not warrant a finding that the blamed's propensity for smoking ganja had
initiated in him an unhealthy perspective in order to make him unequipped for understanding
the wrongfulness of his demonstration. The Civil Surgeon found 'no case to articulate him
crazy'; yet as per his confirmation the blamed looked "more tragic than crazy". In spite of the
fact that smoking ganja may represent the eccentric things which the blamed used to do, we
don't surmise that the realities for this situation, saw in. the light of surely understood legal
choices, for example, Queen-Empress v. Venkataswami (1889), are sufficiently solid to give
him exception from the culpability of his direct under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code.
The way that he pursued away putting the light to the cover demonstrates that at the time he
submitted the offense he was cognizant that what he was doing was wrongful.

As respects the second dispute, the wording of Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code loans
some help to the contention progressed before us. That area sets out that, in specific classes of
cases, the inebriated individual should be at risk to be managed as though he had not been
inebriated; but rather it doesn't give that an inebriated individual might be managed as though
he had a similar goal. In spite of the fact that customarily goal is to be gathered from learning,
there might be situations where plan must be found as a reality and can't be expected in which
cases willful tipsiness might be depended on to demonstrate that the required 'expectation' is
truant.

14
This, we believe, is the most extreme that could be said for this dispute. Notwithstanding as
indicated by this confined translation for this situation, the proof makes it clear that,
regardless of the ganja smoking, the denounced had the essential criminal aim, on the
grounds that when he put the light to the cover he fled. He realized that the demonstration he
was doing was a wrongful one and from this information we can accept that he more likely
than not had the criminal 'aim' imperative for the offense. Further, the proof demonstrates that
the charged himself was a school ace in a similar school for about a year and that, when his
dad who had resigned from the school found that his child was carrying on seriously he (the
father) made a report requesting his child a half year's leave. The blamed probably caught that
the aftereffect of the report would be the end of his association with the school and hence he
should have intentionally set fire to the working to demonstrate his disturbance.

Along these lines, the absolution of the denounced was put aside and convict him of the
offense under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code with which he was charged and sentence
him to experience one year's thorough detainment.

Sheikh Falsar v. State ( 2006)

Facts : A young lady of 7-8 years, had lined up alongside other poor and destitutes, who line
up at the Delhi's acclaimed ' Hanuman Mandir', to get prasadam from the lovers going by the
sanctuary. Her mom and close relative were likewise holding up in the line. The young lady
was drawn nearer by the appealing party with a guarantee to get her bangles and a 'pajeb'.
The appealing party took the youthful and unsespecting young lady to a khatta ( fenced in
area for junk ) where hr expelled her dress and got her exposed and submitted assault on her.
The demonstration was conferred in a horrifying way. They hymen was torn. There was a
moment degree perpetual tear and plentiful dying. the young lady even ended up oblivious
and her vagina must be sewed. An open witness, named Ramesh kumar, heard the cries of a
young lady, when she was being assaulted. He peeped in and found the appealing party
weaing a banyan and tehmat. The appealing party immediately left the young lady and took
to his foot rear areas. The observer alongside a policde constable pursued the appealing party,
who was captured after some separation and got him. Therapeutic proof and reports certify
the declaration of the young lady and general society observer of assault having been
conferred by the appealing party. The mother of the young lady was additionally inspected,

15
who expressed that subsequent to discovering her girl missing, she was searching for her and
discovered her at Kotwali with her dresses splashed with blood.

The appealing party asserts clean predecessors and expressed that he has never been indicted.
The litigant in an announcement under Section 313 CRPC, while denying the charge
expressed that he was affected by liqour and did not recognize what had happened. Mr. V.K.
Raina presented that the litigant being inebriated, couldn't be ascribed with information and
expectation for his demonstration.

He put dependence on the judgment Basdev v. Province of Pepsu . We are

not induced to acknowledge this accommodation for the benefit of the appealing party.
Reference might be made to Section 86 IPC. Segment 86, IPC gives that a man who
completes a demonstration in a condition of intoxication, might be at risk to be managed as
though he had an indistinguishable information from he would have in the event that he was
not inebriated; unless the intoxicant is directed without his insight or without wanting to. In
addition, the refered to judgment Itself perceives that tipsiness is usually neither a barrier nor
pardon for wrongdoing, and where it is accessible as a halfway response to a charge, it lays
on the detainee to demonstrate it. It isn't sufficient that he was energized or rendered more
peevish, unless the intoxication was, for example, to keep his limiting himself from
submitting the demonstration being referred to, or to detract from him the energy of shaping a
particular expectation. Such a condition of inebriation must be appeared. In the moment case,
no proof of tipsiness has been driven by the respondent. A scrutiny of the therapeutic report
of the litigant, who was analyzed around the same time at 4.45 p.m., i.e., inside two hours of
the wrongdoing, does not hint at or record any inebriation or liquor having been devoured.
This supplication is, subsequently, not accessible to the appealing party.

The appealing party was indicted for offenses under Section 366 and Section 376(2)(f) of
Indian Penal Code. Vide request of sentence dated fifth February, 2002, the appealing party
was condemned to life detainment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - for the offense under Section
376(2)(f), IPC. In default of installment of fine, litigant was to experience encourage SI for
one year. The litigant was likewise condemned to thorough detainment for a long time and a
fine of Rs. 10,000/ - . In default, basic detainment for one year for the offense under Section

16
366, IPC. Both the sentences are to run simultaneously with the advantage of Section 428,
Cr.P.C. additionally accessible to the appealing party.

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. 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. But thanks to the science and
technology prevelant it is easy for the courts to analyse whether the accused was really under
the influence of alcohol or other intoxicated 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.

Bibliography
- Criminal Manual by Eastern Book Company, 28th edition
- Principles of Criminal Law in India by Kumar Askand Panday

17