Intoxicated Person

Drunkenness is considered a form of voluntary madness for which the individual is responsible. If a
person chooses to get drunk, it is their own voluntary act, distinct from the madness not caused by any
voluntary action.

The Latin maxim “Qui Pecat Ebrius Luat Sobrius” means “Let him who sins when drunk be punished
when sober.” However, Sections 85 and 86 protect an intoxicated person if they became intoxicated by
mistake (e.g., taking the wrong medicine) or against their will through fraud or force.

Section 85 states that an act done by a person who, due to intoxication, is incapable of knowing the
nature of the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law is not an offence, provided that the substance that
caused the intoxication was administered without their knowledge or against their will.

The test for drunkenness Is the capacity to form an intention to commit the offence, whereas the test for
insanity is the capacity to know the nature of one’s act. However, if insanity is produced by drunkenness,
it can be considered a defence under Section 84.

Section 86 establishes a presumption for certain offences committed by intoxicated persons. Suppose an
act is an offence only when done with a particular intention or knowledge, and an intoxicated person
commits it. In that case, they will be presumed to have the requisite knowledge for the offence unless
they can demonstrate that they were intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will. It should
be noted that there is no presumption regarding the person’s intention.

Alcohol, medicines, bhang, ganja, etc., can cause intoxication. If the accused drank liquor at the
persuasion of their father to alleviate pain, it could not be considered that the liquor administration was
against their will. Therefore, they could not claim the benefit under Section 85.

In Basdev v. State of Pepsu (AIR 1956 SC 488), it was held that drunkenness is generally neither a defence
nor an excuse for a crime. By law, an intoxicated person is presumed to have the same knowledge as a
sober individual. However, the accused’s intention must be determined from the circumstances of the
case, taking into account the degree of intoxication.

If the accused’s mind was so affected by drink that they more readily gave in to violent passion, it could
not be argued that they did not intend the natural consequences of their actions. To claim the benefit
under Section 86, the accused must be so drunk that they could not form the intent (Director of Public
Prosecutions v. Beard, 1920).