Prepared by Asisst. Professor Rekha Khandelwal ( Expert of Criminal Law)
To read about Notes on Indian Penal Code Plz. click the link
IPC Chapter – IV General Exceptions
Absence of Criminal intent- Intoxication ( Sec. 85 & 86)
Cases relating to Section 86
Gautam Bhila Ahire v. State of Maharashtra,(1)
Accused husband beating his wife and throwing burning lamp on her under the influence of liquor. Since he himself consumed the liquor he is not entitled to claim benefit under section 86 of IPC, 1860.
Shankar Jaiswara v. State of WB,(2)
Act of the accused of walking a distance to the house of a witness and concealing the weapon and his wearing apparels showed that he was conscious and capable of understanding of his act. No o evidence as regards the degree of intoxication or any evidence of any attending general circumstances to arrive at a conclusion that accused was beside his mind altogether temporarily at time incident.
Babu Sadashiv Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra,(3)
On the basis of evidence in this case it cannot be said that the accused was so much intoxicated at the time of the incident that he was beside his mind altogether for the time being. He did set his wife on Fire, but as soon as her saree started burning he realised the folly of his act and started extinguishing the fire. The facts are showing that he was not so much intoxicated that he could not know the nature of act. So thegeneral rule that a man is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act can be applied to him also. Conviction under Section 302 IPC, 1860 altered to one under section 304(1) IPC, 1860.
Mahvari Surya Satyanarayan vs State of AP(4)
In case of voluntary drunkenness, it will be deemed to be a case of no drunkenness so far as knowledge is concerned. As the word intention has not been mentioned in the second part, it means the Parliament wanted that the word ‘intention’ should not be presumed even in the case of an act done in a drunken state of mind. Therefore, whether the accused was having intention or not while committing an act cannot be presumed as in case of knowledge.
Dil Mohammed AIR(5)
As certain guilty knowledge or intention forms part of the definition of many offences, this section is provided to meet those cases. It says that a person voluntarily intoxicated will be deemed to have the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated. There may be cases in which particular knowledge is an ingredient, and there may be other cases in which a particular intent is an ingredient, the two not being necessarily always identical. The section nowhere says that the accused shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the similar intention as might have been assumed if he had not been toxicated. Therefore, although there is a presumption so far as knowledge is concerned, there is no such presumption with regard to intention.
The section 86 attributes to a drunken man the knowledge of a Sober man when judging of his action but does not give him the same intention.
The presumption may be rebutted by his showing that at the time he did the act, his mind was so affected by the drink he had taken that he was in capable of forming the intention requisite for making his act the offence charged against him.
(1) 2010 CrLJ 4073 (Bom.)
(2) (2007) 9 SCC 360
(3) 1984 CrLJ 739 (Bom.)
(4) 1995 CrLJ 689
(5) 1956 SC 488
(6) (1917) PR No.28 of 1917.
(1941) 24 Lah 39
To read about Notes on Constitution of India Plz. click the link
To read about Notes on Law of Torts Plz click the link