Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crime
Crime
1.Scope
2.Onus to prove intoxication
3.Mistake while drunk
4.Implications of section 85
5.Intoxication- proving of.
6.Rape case- Defence of intoxication
7.State of Intoxication
SCOPE OF SEC 85
Section 85 applies only in cases of involuntary intoxication (drunkenness). Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the
commission of the crime.[ Prabhunath v. State, AIR 1957 AII 667 (DB)]
Where the accused could not show that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of the commission of the offence,
the benefit of Section 85 was not given.[ Sohan Manjhi v. State, AIR 1970 Pat 303 : 170 Cri Lj 1245 (DB)]
Consequently, where the intoxication is administered to the accused by stratagem or fraud of another, as when mixed with
his food or drink and given to him in confidence he is excused. [ Jethuram v. State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 at p.
243]Where the accused consumed liquor, quarreled with his wife and thereafter poured kerosene on her and set fire, it was
held that the benefit under section 85 was not available.[Venkappa, K. Chowdari v. State of Karnataka, 1996 Cri LJ 15
(Kant) (DB) ] On this view if friends or relatives persuade a person to drink a little more than he can reasonably digest, he
cannot complain that he was made to drink a little more than he can reasonably digest, he cannot complain that he was
made to drink against his will.[ Jethuram v State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 at p. 243, 244 (DB)] Where an accused takes
liquor to alleviate pain, it is not a case of involuntary drunkenness and the accused is not protected by Section 85.[
Jethuram v State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 (DB)]
Drunkenness may in extreme cases result in delirium, tremors or insanity- whether temporary or permanent and if it is
does so, the offender will be held not guilty.[Samman Singh v. Emperor,AIR 1941 lah 454 (DB)]
Unless drunkenness either amounts to unsoundness of mind so as to enable insanity to be pleaded by way of defence, or
the degree of drunkenness is such as to establish incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the
crime, drunkenness is neither a defence nor a palliation.[ Wariam Singh v. Crown AIR 1926 Lah 428 : 27 Cri Lj 764] Where
the evidence was lacking to show accuser’s incapacity to form requisite intention, the accused was held guilty under
Section 302 and not under Section 304, Part II. [ Basdeo v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 : Cri Lj 919] Where the accused
caused death in state of voluntary intoxication he was held liable under Section 302 and not under Section 304. Part II.[
Ramsingh v.State of Gujarat (1985) 1 Guj LR 40] Where the accused consumed liquor scolded his wife, set fire to her, and
when she extinguished the fire, set fire to her again resulting in her death, the offence fell under section 302 and not under
Section 304, Part-II.[ M.S.Satyanarayana v. State of A.P., 1995 Cri Lj 686 (AP) (DB)]
Voluntary drunkenness is no defence under Section 85,m but it may be taken into consideration while awarding
punishment.[ Samman Singh v. Emperor,AIR 1941 lah 454 (DB)] Where the abnormal behavior of the deceased was due to
excessive drunkenness, the protection under Section 85 held not available.[ Deba Dip v. State, 1994 Cri LJ NOC 154 (Ori)]
MISTAKE WHILE DRUNK