Intoxication
Indian law on involuntary and voluntary drunkenness is contained in Sections 23 and 24
respectively. A combined reading of Sections 23 and 24 reveal that the former lays down the law
relating to involuntary intoxication as a defence of criminal charge while the latter deals with
criminal liability of a voluntarily intoxicated person.
In order to take the benefit of Section 23 it must be proved that intoxication is caused against the
will or without the knowledge of the accused Voluntary intoxication is not a defence even
though due to such voluntary intoxication the accused was incapable of knowing the nature of
the act. Section 23 provides that 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
The thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against
his will
The expression 'without his knowledge or against his will' means ignorance of the fact that what
is being administered is an intoxicant. Where the drunkenness is involuntary the criminal act of a
person will be judged with reference to his mental condition at the time when the act was
committed. In Jethuram Sukura Nagbanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1960) CrLJ 1093
court held that in cases where the person is involuntarily intoxicated, he cannot be said to have
acted on his own accord and therefore, he is not responsible for his own acts.
In Paul v. State of Kerala, (2020) 3 SCC 115 Supreme Court held that so far as knowledge is
concerned in case of voluntary drunkeness, knowledge is to be presumed in the same manner as
if there is no drunkeness. So far as intention is concerned, it must be gathered from attending
general circumstances of the case.
In Director of Public Prosecution v. Beard, 1920 AC 479 court laid down that where a specific
intent is essential element of offence, evidence of a state of drunkenness rendering the accused
incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration in order to determine
whether he had in fact formed the intent necessary to constitute a particular crime. It must be
noted that mere fact that an intoxicant was administered to him by another person without his
knowledge or against his will, does not qualify him for exemption under this section. What is
required to be established that he, by reason of the intoxicant administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will by someone else, lost his ability to understand the nature of the act
committed by him. The court held that evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved
incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, and merely
establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent
passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends those natural consequences of his
acts.
Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated:
Section 24 provides that 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
Section 24 creates a rule of presumption in cases where the intoxication is voluntary. In case of
voluntary intoxication, there can be a case where that the intoxication was so excessive that due
to such intoxication the accused became incapable of knowing the nature of the act. In such cases
Section 23 shall not apply. Section 24 provides that if an offence requiring such a knowledge or
intention is committed by self-induced intoxication, only knowledge, and not intention, of the
offence on his part will be presumed. In effect, Section 24 imputes the same knowledge to a man
intoxicated voluntarily as he would have had had not been intoxicated. Degree of intoxication
required in both the sections is same. In both the sections it is required to be shown that the
degree of intoxication made the person incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he
is doing is either wrong or contrary to law.
Voluntary drunkenness under Section 24 does not afford a defence where merely knowledge
required to constitute the offence was wanting, though it may be used to show that any intent it
required was absent. In Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488, Supreme Court held that the
court will only presume the existence of knowledge and not intention as mens rea. A person who
gets into the state of intoxication voluntarily is presumed to have the same knowledge as he
would have had if he had not been intoxicated. This presumption of knowledge in cases of
voluntary intoxication is a rebuttable presumption. Intention is the highest degree of mind and it
cannot be presumed. It has to be proved by the prosecution on the basis of facts and
circumstances of the case.