The Supreme Court of India issued a landmark decision regarding the acceptability of intoxication as a defense in criminal law in the 1956 case of basdev vs state of pepsu. In the factual context, Basdev was charged with raping and killing a 13-year-old girl. He argued that the necessary mens rea for criminal responsibility was not present since he was intoxicated at the time of the alleged offenses.
Two key questions that dominated the court’s discussion were whether intoxication could be used as a defense and how it affected the mental components of knowledge and intention in crimes involving sections 85 of the indian penal code and section 86 of the Indian penal code.
basdev vs state of pepsu Case Facts
- The appellant had gone to a wedding, where he drank too much wine. He went and asked one of the boys to get up from the chair so he could sit on it while he was drunk.
- The child did not want to listen to him. Following the boy’s denial, the appeal took a revolver out of his pocket and shot him in the abdomen.
- As a result, the boy passed away immediately.
- The court noted that in accordance with section 86 of the indian penal code 1860, an individual who commits an act while intoxicated may be treated as though he had the same knowledge as he would have if he hadn’t been intoxicated, provided that the intoxicating substance wasn’t given to him against his will or without his knowledge.
basdev vs state of pepsu Issues
- Should the appellant’s murder charge be lowered to culpable homicide, which does not qualify as murder?
- Is the appellant eligible to assert the defense of intoxication?
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- Since their excessive inebriation precluded them from having any intention of killing the child, the appellant should argue their defense of intoxication in this case.
- The appellant was so consumed with alcohol that they were unable to comprehend the repercussions of shooting a youngster, even if they did not have the necessary intent to murder him.
- Therefore, the IPC should recognize the appellant’s argument of intoxication, and the murder charge should be dropped in favour of culpable homicide that does not qualify as murder.
Respondent:
- The appellant became inebriated voluntarily by consuming alcohol. After that, he wasn’t so drunk that he couldn’t comprehend the significance of the act of pulling a pistol and shooting a child.
- The appellant should not be allowed to use the defense of intoxication; instead, he should be prosecuted for murder rather than culpable homicide that does not qualify as murder.
basdev vs state of pepsu Judgment
- The honorable court believes that although the appellant was intoxicated, the influence of the alcohol he drank, which resulted in intoxication, was not substantial because the appellant was fully aware of the repercussions of his actions.
- The appellant was not so inebriated as to be incapable of understanding the nature of his act, as evidenced by the fact that he could move around on his own and did not require assistance from anybody.
- In addition, the fact that he chose a seat shows that the appellant is capable of making thoughtful choices. He also made a plea with the witnesses following the crime, indicating that he was aware of the repercussions of his acts and that he recognized the nature of the act he performed.
- As a result, the Court believes that the appellant’s defense of intoxication should be rejected.
- The details of a person’s knowledge and intent to commit a crime were examined by the court. The degree of drunkenness must be considered in voluntary intoxication since involuntary intoxication is a defense under the IPC.
- This aids in determining if the accused was so inebriated that they were unable to make conscious decisions about the nature and ramifications of their actions.
- This deduction differs from case to case and is based on the individual’s specific act, which reveals their mental ability to generate intent. The honorable court has made a distinction between the definitions of “intention” and “knowledge,” holding that the former refers to a person’s motivation for forming an intention and the latter to their awareness of the act’s repercussions.
- The honorable Supreme Court ruled that the appellant should be prosecuted for murder and expressed reluctance to downgrade the conduct to culpable homicide that does not qualify as murder.
- The appellant was intoxicated, but not to the point where it prevented him from having the mental capacity to form an intention, according to the court’s opinion.
- As a result, the defense of intoxication should not be accepted. The appellant has not been able to establish that he was so profoundly drunk at the time of the act that he was unable to think clearly or understand the ramifications of his actions. As a result, the appeal was denied and he was found accountable.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
