IPC Section 86 - Offence Requiring A Particular Intent Or Knowledge Committed By One Who Is Intoxicated

“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 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.”

Key Components Of IPC Section 86

• Offence Involving Specialised Knowledge or Intent: Section 86 applies only to offences that are not offences unless committed with special intent or knowledge.
• Presumption of Knowledge: Section 86 presumes an intoxicated person has the same knowledge they would have been possessed of if sober. Intoxication does not excuse the person who was aware of the consequences of what he was doing.
• Exception: Involuntary Intoxication: The exemption excuses liability where the intoxication was involuntary, namely if the substance was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Key Terms Of IPC Section 86

• Offence Requiring Intent or Knowledge: Offences that are not punishable if committed without a particular mental condition such as intent or knowledge.
• Intoxication: The state of losing sobriety due to liquor or drugs and impaired capacity of mind and body.
• Voluntary Intoxication: A person takes intoxicants with his full knowledge and will.
• Involuntary Intoxication: Intoxication that is brought without the person's knowledge or against their will.
• Mens Rea: The guilty mind or criminal intent.
• Presumption of Knowledge: A legal presumption that a voluntarily intoxicated person retains the same knowledge as if sober.
• Exception Clause: An exception clause provides protection so that liability cannot be ascribed when intoxication was involuntary.
• Burden of Proof: This burden lies with the accused to prove that his intoxication was involuntary.
• Legal Liability: The intoxicated person is treated as if they had the same intent or knowledge as when sober.

Principle Of Mens Rea And Its Interplay With Intoxication

In the criminal law, mens rea is the mental element necessary to commit an offense. Section 86 codifies the presumption that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to prove the absence of mens rea. For crimes whose commission requires a particular intent or knowledge, it is presumed that a person who voluntarily drank intoxicants knew the danger.

The distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication can be made regarding the knowledge and willingness of the individual to consume the intoxicant. It becomes crucial for the Court to look into the intention and knowledge of the accused for final determination.

Landmark Judgments

Following are landmark judgements:

Director of Public Prosecutions vs. Beard (1920)

In this case, the court held that voluntary intoxication is not a defence for criminal conduct in the common law of England. The court held that this view is premised on the principle that where one voluntarily becomes intoxicated and thereby loses his willpower, such a person should not be placed in a better legal position than a sober person in regard to criminal acts.

But the court also recognized that evidence of intoxication which made the accused incapable of forming that specific intent required for a crime should be taken into account while deciding if they actually had an intent to commit the crime or not. The court stated that, if the accused was intoxicated to such an extent that he could not form the intention, he could not be found guilty of a crime which required him to form such an intention.

Basdev vs. The State Of Pepsu (1956)

The Court in this case held the following:

• Knowledge: A person who is intoxicated is always said to possess knowledge equal to that of a sober man. This implies that he cannot plead ignorance of facts on the ground of intoxication.
• Intention: While knowledge is presumed, intention must be assessed based on the circumstances, considering the degree of intoxication.
  • If the individual was completely incapacitated by intoxication, the court cannot establish the requisite intention.
  • However, if the person was aware of his actions despite intoxication, the legal principle that a person intends the natural consequences of their actions applies.
• Distinction between motive, intention, and knowledge: The Court stressed the differences between these concepts:
  • Motive is the reason behind forming an intention.
  • The desired result of an act is intention.
  • Knowledge is when someone is aware of the outcome of a particular action.
• Intoxication as a Defense: The Court stated that
  • Although intoxication cannot be used as a defense or excuse for a crime, it can be considered when intent is a determining factor in the crime.
  • The accused must prove that their intoxication was severe enough to render them incapable of forming the necessary intent.
  • If the accused was merely more easily provoked by intoxication but could still form the intent, it does not negate the presumption of intending the natural consequences of their actions.

Dasa Kandha vs. The State (1976)

The court held that mere consumption of alcohol does not prove intoxication within the meaning of section 86.

To successfully avail the defence under Section 86, the accused has to show:

• They were intoxicated to the extent that they were incapable of forming the necessary intent for the crime.
• The intoxication reached a level that rebuts the presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of their actions.

Practical Implications Of Section 86 Of IPC

• Accountability: The provision bars culprits from using voluntary intoxication as a defense to avoid responsibility for intentional crimes. This deters people from reckless behavior and keeps society safe.
• Protection against Abuse: The defence of involuntary intoxication ensures that no person who is intoxicated or coerced into intoxication shall be held liable in circumstances that offend against the maxim of natural justice.
• Difficulty in Application: Proving Involuntary intoxication requires a lot of evidence, which is not easy to present. Courts need to scrutinize the mental state of the accused, which can lead to complexity in judgment.

Conclusion

Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code establishes a clear legal framework for handling cases where an offence requires a specific intent or knowledge. It ensures that voluntary intoxication cannot be used as a defense against criminal liability for such offences. A person who commits an offence while intoxicated is presumed to have the same knowledge and intent as they would have had if sober. However, the law does provide an exception in cases of involuntary intoxication, where the individual was unknowingly or unwillingly intoxicated. This section upholds the principle of accountability, ensuring that intoxication does not absolve individuals from the consequences of their actions, unless the intoxication was forced upon them.

FAQs

Here are some frequently asked questions (FAQs) to clarify key aspects of Section 86 of the IPC:

Q1. What does Section 86 of the IPC state about intoxication as a defense?

Section 86 clarifies that voluntary intoxication does not serve as a defense for crimes that require a specific intent or knowledge. An intoxicated person is presumed to have the same intent and knowledge as if they were sober, unless they were intoxicated involuntarily.

Q2. Can a person be excused for an offence if they were intoxicated involuntarily?

Yes, if a person was intoxicated against their will or without their knowledge, they may be excused from criminal liability. Involuntary intoxication is an exception under Section 86.

Q3. Does intoxication affect the formation of intent for a crime?

While voluntary intoxication does not excuse a person from criminal responsibility, it can affect whether the accused had the necessary intent to commit a crime. Courts will assess whether the intoxication impaired the individual’s ability to form that intent.

Q4. What is the difference between voluntary and involuntary intoxication under Section 86?

Voluntary intoxication occurs when a person willingly consumes intoxicants, while involuntary intoxication refers to situations where a person is intoxicated without their consent, such as being drugged.

Q5. Can intoxication be used as a defense in all types of crimes?

No, intoxication cannot be used as a defense for crimes requiring specific intent or knowledge. However, it can be considered in certain cases where the individual’s ability to form intent was severely impaired, especially in the case of involuntary intoxication.