Introduction:
“ACT OF A PERSON INCAPABLE OF JUDGMENT BY REASON OF INTOXICATION CAUSED AGAINST HIS WILL”
Many times, as a general principle of law, man is presumed to know the nature and consequence of his act is, therefore, held responsible for it. However, we have few exceptions for this general rules, also a person may be excused of crime. In some cases, a person may be entirely excused from criminal responsibility by virtue of being head of a sovereign state or being representative of such a state, or of the United Nations organization and so on. Criminal proceedings are not involved against such personages on the principle that the exercise of criminal jurisdiction would be incompatible with their prestige, position and high status.
Others may be executed from the consequences of punishment by reason of the absence of the requisite mens rea necessary for the commission of a particular offence. This is well based on well-known maxim actus reas i.e. the act alone does not makes a man guilty, there should be an intension to commit a crime.
The framers of Indian penal code decided to put all exceptions in one code of the code of chapter IV commencing from sections 76 to 106 to obviate the necessity of repeating in every penal cause a considerable number of limitations.[1]
Intoxication
Section85 “Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will”- Nothing is an offence, which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him without his knowledge or against his will.
Intoxication is the condition in which a person is physical or mental controlled by the effects of alcohol or drugs.
Principle
Section 85 and 86 of Indian Penal Code has solidified in tabloid form the provisions related to acts done or committed by a person due to intoxication in reducing the rigorous of the law. Since the mens rea is the basis of criminal liability, an intoxicated person, is in the same state of mind. This state of a person has been defined as dementia offectatia by the law in legal terms. It is a form of lunacy in which the working of the mind is temporarily blocked/stopped or suspended. But no one can be permitted to have a benefit of doubt of immunity by getting drunk, and so voluntary drunkenness is never an answer to a criminal offence. But if a man is forced to drunkenness through trick or fraud, ignorance, without the accused’s knowledge or consent or against his will, the act is not a voluntary act and so he is excused from liability.
In voluntary intoxication, the accused has willfully had or taken or consumed any kind of intoxicating thing, drugs, alcohol before committing acts or offence which constitute the prohibited conduct i.e. actus reas of an offence, has posed a considerable problem for the criminal law.
Ingredients of Voluntary Intoxication
Section 85 lays down the test to determine when a person is said to have caused an act as a result of voluntary intoxication so as to claim the benefit to an exemption under this section. Section 85 gives the same immunity to a person intoxicated involuntarily as section 84gives to a person of unsound mind. That is to say, in order to claim exemption from criminal liability on the ground of involuntary intoxication must be established that he was:
- Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or;
- That he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law and;
- That the thing which intoxicated him was given to him without his knowledge or against his will.
The result of such a provision is basically based on the disagreement that the defendant had not been involved himself with his own will towards his drunkenness and which is not likely to be repeated as in the case of a voluntary act. [2] For example, if a person commits an offence when he was intoxicated through the fraud of another or through coercion or ignorance practiced by someone, he is protected under this section. Because in such cases the person intoxicated may not be said to have acted on his own accord and therefore is not responsible for the consequences for his acts.
Section 86 “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 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.
Principle- The situation of drunkenness can never be an excuse for criminal misconduct.
Indeed, the authorities broadly had declared that voluntary drunkenness should be considered rather an allegation than a defence. This view was based on the principle that man who will destroy his own voluntary act has no power or shall be no suitable situation in reference to criminal offences than a sober man.
An early statement of the law found in;
RENIGAR V. FOGOSSA [3], says that if a person kills another person in a drunken state shall be more serious than a misdemeanour, and he shall be hanged for it, and yet he did it with ignorance, for when he was drunk he had no understanding nor knowledge; but inasmuch as that ignorance was occasioned by his own act and foolishness and he might have avoided it, he shall not be privileged thereby.’
Judicial decisions extending over a period of time that is nearly 140 years make it plain that the rigidity of this rule was gradually relaxed in the 19th century. Although voluntary drunkenness cannot excuse from the commission of a crime, yet when there will be a charge of murder the material question rises that whether an offence/ act was already planned or not or was done in stress, heat or impulsion. The fact of the party being intoxicated is a circumstance proper to be taken into view.
Ingredient of Section 86
Section 86 talks about a class of cases where a person enters into intoxication by choice. It shoots up the same knowledge to such a person as he would have had, had he not been intoxicated that is the knowledge of a sober person with regards to the consequences of his/her acts.
Let us take an example if A has consumed too much alcohol, picks up a knife from his home and went out on roads screaming about his intension to kill B. A has quarrelled with B earlier. A killed C who tried to calm him, A will be ascribed with the same knowledge as would have had, had been sober and his act would amount to culpable homicide and will be punishable under section 304 of Indian penal code and not murder.
Case: BASDEV V. STATE OF PEPSU [4]
In this case, we can summarize the law of drunkenness clearly summarized. The plaintiff Baldev of village Harigarh was a retired military jamadar. He was charged for the murder of Maghar Singh a young boy, who was about aged 15.
The two of them and others of the same village went to attend a wedding ceremony in some other village. All three of them had gone to the house of the bride to have a meal in the middle of the day.
The plaintiff asked Maghar Singh to step aside a little so that he could occupy a seat of his choice. But Maghar Singh did not move from his place. The appellant takes his pistol out and shot the boy in his abdomen.
The injury resulted in fatal.
While the court rejected the plea of the accused to allow him the benefits of section 86 and asked to reduce the charges from murder to culpable homicide the Supreme Court presented the few guidelines as:
- The absence of understanding of nature and consequences of an act, whether produced by drunkenness or any other ways, is a defence of a crime committed
- The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration with other facts in order to determine whether or not he had this intent;
- The evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, merely establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily can give a way to somehow a violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man plans the natural consequences of his own acts.
Case: Sarthi V. State of Madhya Pradesh [5]
In this case, there were three drunken people who overpowered the dead and rendered him unconscious with violence means or by rough handling. They have a specific intention to cause grievous hurt until then, but the question raised was to the intent became doubtful situation when the accused persons hanged him from the ceiling without taking steps to assure whether he was dead or not. The carelessness and gross negligence on the part of these accused, under a state of intoxication, gave the accused a benefit to be convicted for culpable homicide not amount to murder under section 304, Indian penal code (IPC) instead of murder under section 302, IPC.
Foreseeability Test
Foreseeability is defined as a legal term that can be used to identify the proximate cause and therefore a person’s liability, results in injury due to act of negligence.
The foreseeability test broadly results in whether a person of normal intelligence should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that could result due to his her cause of conduct.
Let’s take an example of the same. Foreseeability is observed when a distracted driver causes a car accident. It is believed once the focus deflects, the accident happens or we can say a phrase in Hindi that “nazar hati, durghatna ghati.” In this car, the driver can be held liable.
If the driver has caused more accidents or seizures in past such event will be foreseeable but if the driver has not met any accident in past and the current one is his first one then, in this case, the victim cannot argue with the accused and can claim damages from their own insurance company.
If there is a presence of liability or not, still defers foreseeability test. We very well know the fact that intake of alcohol or any other such substance like drugs or so can cause loss of control. Therefore even if a person consumes it without the presence of coercion, with their own choice, they know the facts that they can lose control over senses. If a person does not was it to happen they should not do the same so that there, they could maintain the control within the scope of their intension by continuing to consume.
There are not sudden effects visible. For an instance, people do not even realize the consumption of alcohol in blood and step towards the commission of offence with noticeable symptoms.
Burden of Proof [6]
The burden of proof means such evidence as would induce a reasonable man, in the particular situation of the case in which the claim arises, to act upon the supposition that it exists. However, in most cases, the burden of proving everything establishes a charge against the defendant, lies on the prosecution who considerably asserts the afformative and not upon the person who denies to accept the offences related to dowry death, the suicide of a newly married woman, or rape etc. the maxim ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probation, wiz, he who seeks the aid of a court should be first to prove that he has a case and that in the nature of things it is more difficult to prove a negative than a positive.
Accordingly, the burden of proving that the accused not only committed the criminal act but further he did so with a guilty mind is necessary to constitute the crime charged. The rest upon the prosecution throughout the trial; it never shifts to the defence.
For an instance, in a criminal case where the accused is charged for murder under section 302, INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC), it is the duty of the prosecution to prove such intension or knowledge as is mentioned under section 300, IPC. As long as the prosecution does not prove such intension or knowledge, the accused is entitled to acquittal on that charge and there is no onus on him to take prove any special plea.
Burden of Proof on the Accused to Prove an Exception
The burden of proof establishing an exception which will entitle a person to be exempted of the charge is on the person who wants to brings his case within any one of such clauses. Thus it is the accused who is need to show that his case was within one of the exceptions.
Burden of Proof on Accused in Case of Offences Against State, Dowry Death and Rape, etc.
The burden of proof may, however, be shifted by action of the parties and by statutory enactment. The standard or the degree of proof also varies according to the nature and gravity of offence for example in case of grave offences such as offences against the state, dowry death, abetment of suicide by married women, rape, cruelty by husband or relatives and socio-economic offences etc. burden of proof on an accused to prove his innocence.
This onus can be discharged in two ways: 1st, it can be discharged by affirmatively establishing the plea taken up by an accused person. Secondly, it can also be discharged by eliciting such situations as would create a doubt in the mind of the court that the reasonable possibility of the accused acting within the protection of the exception pleaded is not eliminated. This can be done also by generating evidence in defence or by relying upon the facts alleged by the prosecution itself.
Conclusion
Alcohol slows down the functioning of our nervous system. It defers or delays the messages that should reach your mind and causes dizziness and fatalness. Any act or crime done under the effect of being intoxicated can cause harm to us or to someone else. It results in a poor judgment of decisions. Alcohol actually blocks some of the messages trying to get to the brain. This alters a person’s perceptions, emotions, movement, vision, and hearing.
The government should ban such intakes as alcohol. It should be illegal to sell alcohol. Drugs and other narcotic substances are illegal in India, but still, there are people, who sell it openly. Everyone knows the harmful effects, pros and cons but still, most of the population consumes them.
Therefore, if look at the bigger picture, general defences does not play a major role in deciding a case’s major significant agenda. The crux of the criminal law is to prove to have a guilty intension.
The court always looks up for the circumstances, facts, situations everything of the case to decide whether the defences would apply or not. A person can’t claim direct defences from the court and move away from the real consequences. It’s always the mens rea which decides the guilt of a person. The defences, under Indian penal code only depend upon the foremost situation and criteria of circumstances.
References:
[1] K.D GAUR- FIFTH EDITION GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
[2] Hale, P.C.32 MATHAT MATHEW V. STATE, 1952 Cr LJ 1304 de. R . principles of criminology, criminal law and investigation, 2nd edn., pp.604-605,1972
[3] 1980, 75 ER 1 (31) ; WOLDES WORTH , history of English law, (1937) p.441
[4] AIR 1956 SC 488: 1956 SCR 363: 1956 SCJ 554
[5] 1976 Cr Lj 594 (MP)
[6] K.D GAUR – FIFTH EDITION, BURDER OF PROOF
0 Comments