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.

COMMENTS

Ingredients

(i) The prosecution has to prove that in spite of drunkenness the accused had intention to commit the act forbidden by law; Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 19 (AP).

(ii) Sometimes intention on the part of the person who is drunk can also be assessed from the nature of weapon used in the com­mission of the offence. If a person uses a weapon which is not dangerous and the attack results in death, a malicious intention cannot be drawn against him even though drunkenness is no excuse; Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 19 (AP).

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 was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

COMMENTS

Ingredients of involuntary drunkenness

Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime; Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 19 (AP).

Principle

(i) So far as knowledge is concerned, the standard of test is same as in case of intention; Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 19 (AP).

(ii) The court must attribute to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober unless he was besides his mind altogether at the time of incident; Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 19 (AP).

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

COMMENTS

Insanity needs to be proved

The accused was charged and committed under section 302, I.P.C. for having caused the death of his wife and a female child with a chopper. Rejecting the plea of insanity the Supreme Court observed that the law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. The mere fact that no motive was proved as to why the accused murdered his wife and child nor the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open, could not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence; Seralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 2443.

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.