What is the state of intoxication referred 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 favor 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 committed the offence. So, no question of
drunkenness arises.1. 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 86.2

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.3

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

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

3 Indian Penal Code, 1860

Requisite to claim benefit of Section

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.4

VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION AND CRIMES OF BASIC INTENT

For crimes that require only basic intent, intoxication is no defense. The case law is affirmed
in DPP v Majewski 5[1976]. The accused had taken alcohol and subsequently assaulted a civilian
and three policemen. He was convicted of assault and his respective appeal was dismissed.
The judgement from Majewski was that, if the offence for which he was charged is one of
basic intent, the accused may be punished for 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 committing of that offence, and inspite of the fact that he was in a
state of automatism. Additionally, the House of Lords recognized in Majewski that, for a person
charged with an offence of basic intent, the prosecution does not need to prove the mens rea
required 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 negligence . Certain crimes, such as attempted murder,
can only be committed with mens rea; others may be committed recklessly. The distinction is

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

5 [1976] 2 AII ER 142 (HL)

important. A difference must also exist between negligence and recklessness, so that the law can
punish reckless wrongdoer, but, except certain crimes, it can exempt negligent wrongdoing from
criminal liability.

Basdev v. State of Pepsu6

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 person who was so much drunk and intoxicated asked the boy to make some place for
him to sit . But, when he did not obeyed him, the military officer took out his pistol and shot him
in the stomach. The injury proved dangerous. The evidence showed that the accused was not able
to speak properly he sometimes staggered and sometimes was incoherent in his talk. But it was
shown that he was capable of moving himself easily and was capable of talking coherently as
well. The evidence in this case showed that he came on his own to the marriage party and that
he made the choice of his own seat after injuring the deceased, he attempted to run away but was
captured a short distance from the scene. When he was captured, he realized what he had done
and asked for forgiveness. All these facts, according to the Supreme Court, there was no proved
incapacity on the military officer (accused) to form the intention to cause such 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, accused intended to cause bodily harm on the deceased and the bodily harm so
intended to be inflicted, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The
accused was found guilty of murder.

6 AIR 1956 SC 488