Case note:

Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu on 17 April, 1956

Supreme Court of India

Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu on 17 April, 1956

Equivalent citations: 1956 AIR 488, 1956 SCR 363

Author: N C Aiyar

Bench: Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara

PETITIONER:

BASDEV

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

THE STATE OF PEPSU

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

17/04/1956

BENCH:

AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA

BENCH:

AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA

BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.

CITATION:

1956 AIR 488 1956 SCR 363

 Case note:

Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu on 17 April, 1956

Introduction:

In general in most of the cases related to culpable homicide in which is caused under

alcoholic influence the person in general lacks the intention to do any sort of wrongdoing.

General lacks the motive to do a wrong act. But this cases proves to be a strange example of

such cases in which a person commits a wrongdoing under alcoholic influence and strangely

the evidence of drunkenness falls short of the incapacity to form a specific intent and one of

the witness claim to say that the defendant was almost in the state of unconsciousness

therefore lacking the motive to kill. With such conditions it becomes difficult to choose

whether the defendant has committed a murder or a culpable homicide.

Facts and Claims:

1. The appellant Basdev, a retired military Jamadhar from the village of Harigarh and a
few others were also from the same village.
2. He is charged with the murder of a young boy named Maghar Singh, aged about 15 or
16.
3. Both of them and a few others of the same village went to attend a wedding in another
village.
4. All of them went to the house of the bride to take the midday meal on the 12th March,
1954.
5. Some had settled down in their seats and some hadnt.
6. The appellant asked Maghar Singh, the young boy to step aside a little so that he may
occupy a convenient seat.
 Case note:

Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu on 17 April, 1956

7. But Maghar Singh did not move.

8. The appellant whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen.
9. The injury proved fatal.
10. The party that had assembled for the marriage at the bride's house seems to have made
it very merry and much drinking was involved.
11. The appellant Jamadar boozed quite a lot and he became very drunk and intoxicated.
12. Strangely the evidence of drunkenness had fallen short of the the approved incapacity
to form any specific intent.
13. Hence establishing his mind was not affected by the drink and had a capacity to form
a specific motive.
14. When the same question Was he excessively drunk? was asked but the judge it
was learned by one of the witness Wazir Singh it was told the Basdev was almost in
the state of unconsciousness.
15. Hence completes contradicts to the previous conclusion.

Existing Law:
Section 302(IPC): Punishment for murder.whoever commits murder shall be
punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 304(IPC): Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with
1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or
to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
 Case note:

Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu on 17 April, 1956

Section 86(IPC): 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.

The offense committed by Basdev will be decided basis on the following given below
In situations where a demonstration done is not an offense unless finished with a
specific information or expectation, an individual who commits the offense in a
condition of inebriation will be liable though he was intoxicated as he would have had
in the event that he awful not been inebriated, unless the thing which inebriated him
was directed to him without his insight or without wanting to.

Judgement:
Claim by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the tenth May 1955 of the
Pepsu High Court at Patiala. J.N. Kaushal and Naunit Lal, for the appealing party.
Porus. A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, for the respondent. Hence for the appeal was
rejected as the first part of the procedural history strongly concluded that Basdev has
murdered Maghar Singh.
A special leave was granted by court on the basis whether the offense committed fell
under section 302 or section 304.
According to the court as far as the knowledge is concerned on the basis of the
evidence it can be assumed that the petitioner was not completely intoxicated and
hence his capacity of form a specific intent can be assumed as when if he were in a
normal state of mind.
Hence forth it can be concluded that the offense committed by the petitioner falls under
section 302 of IPC as there was not much evidence to prove that he was in the state where he
couldnt make any specific intention or motive.
 Case note:

Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu on 17 April, 1956

On this finding the offence is not reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting
to murder under the second part of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and
sentence are right and the appeal is dismissed.

Court reasoning:
In order to check whether the consequence of the petitioner falls under section 302 or
304 of IPC, at first we must differentiate we must differentiate motive, knowledge and
intention. Motive is something which forms an intention and knowledge is the
consequences of the act. In most of the cases the intention and knowledge are almost
the same. There are also situations in which the 3 ideas are interchangeable.

On the following basis:

Based on the nature of the weapon used, it can be decided whether drunkenness can be
avoided or not. For example if a drunken man uses a stick we may not find a bad intent. But
at the same time when a weapon like gun is used, then in this case the fact that the man was
drunk can be ignored.

In Regina v. Cruse and Mary his wife: It appears that both the parents of the daughter,
had been drunk. Hence in this case drunkenness is no excuse for any crime whatever, yet it is
often of very great importance in cases where it is a question of intention. A person may be
so drunk as to be utterly unable to form any intention at all, and yet he may be guilty of very
great violence.
Evidence of drunkenness which find out whether the accused was incapable of forming the
specific intent is essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration with the
other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had this intent.

Hence in this case the evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the
accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, and merely establishing that his
 Case note:

Basdev vs The State Of Pepsu on 17 April, 1956

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.