0
0
Author Shaan Marvaniya from Gujarat National Law University
Introduction
The relationship between mental incapacity and criminal responsibility is a fundamental issue in criminal law, raising important questions about fairness and culpability. A key area of concern is how intoxication affects an individual’s ability to form criminal intent. This topic is especially relevant as it seeks to balance the principles of justice with the complex behaviours
exhibited by individuals under the influence of intoxicants.
To grasp the intricacies of this issue, we must first understand the basic principles of criminal law. Central to these principles is the necessity to prove both a wrongful act (actus reus) and a wrongful intention (mens rea) to establish criminal liability. This concept, captured by the maxim “actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,” means that a guilty act alone is not enough for punishment; it must be accompanied by a guilty mind. However, intoxication challenges this principle by impairing a person’s ability to think logically and predict the outcomes of their actions. Within this framework, Section 85 IPC, 1860 plays a crucial role in dealing with situations where intoxication leads to mental incapacity. This article explores how Section 85 IPC addresses the issue of determining criminal liability when someone under the influence of alcohol or narcotics commits a crime. By examining the foundational principles of criminal responsibility and the specific stipulations of Section 85, this discussion aims to clarify the legal approaches used to balance justice with the realities of impaired mental states.1
General Exceptions:
As a general legal principle, it is presumed that an individual is aware of the nature and consequences of their actions and is, therefore, held accountable for them. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule where a person may be exempt from responsibility. In some instances, individuals are completely excused from criminal liability, such as heads of sovereign states or representatives of organizations like the United Nations. These figures are shielded from criminal proceedings based on the principle that subjecting them to such jurisdiction would be incompatible with their prestigious positions and high status. For example, Article 361 of the Constitution of India grants immunity to the President of India and the Governors of States from criminal prosecution, although this protection is limited to their
Additionally, others may be excused from punishment if the requisite mens rea—criminal intent—necessary to commit an offense is absent, as criminal guilt requires not just a wrongful act but also wrongful intent. These exceptions are thoroughly examined within this Chapter.
The creators of the Indian Penal Code grouped all exceptions into one chapter (Chapter IV, Sections 76 to 106) to prevent repeating them in every section. This means that all criminal laws and examples in the Penal Code should be understood in the context of these general exceptions. These exceptions are broadly applicable, covering not only offenses under the Penal Code itself but also those under special or local laws, as outlined in Section 40 of the Code.
Intoxication
Alcohol intoxication, commonly known as drunkenness or alcohol poisoning, refers to the negative behaviours and physical effects resulting from excessive alcohol consumption. Symptoms can range from mild sedation and poor coordination to more severe effects at higher doses, such as slurred speech, difficulty walking, and nausea. This state impairs both the mental and physical abilities of a person due to alcohol or narcotic intake, often leading to a loss of control over actions and an inability to discern right from wrong. An intoxicated individual is not only unable to understand the consequences of their actions but also cannot respond appropriately to situations.2
Legally, alcohol intoxication is defined by a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.025- 0.080% (25-80 mg/dl or 5.4 – 17.4 mmol/L). A BAC above 0.0% can be life-threatening, with higher levels potentially leading to death. Even moderate alcohol levels can impair judgment, cause blurred vision, and affect motor skills, posing significant risks, especially while operating vehicles. Alcohol directly impacts vital organs like the brain and heart. It can cause memory loss and coordination issues, both short-term and long-term. Alcohol consumption can alter brain function and structure, damaging the cerebellum and leading to loss of control and balance. 3The heart, being highly sensitive, is also affected by excessive alcohol, which
weakens it, disrupts oxygen delivery to the body, and can cause imbalances. Long-term effects include high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, and increased risk of cardiac arrest.
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses intoxication under Sections 85 and 86. Criminal liability is typically based on intent, but since intoxication can impair mental function similarly to insanity, the IPC differentiates between voluntary and involuntary intoxication. Voluntary intoxication is not a defence against criminal charges, as no one can claim immunity by choosing to get drunk. However, if someone is forced to drink against their will, their actions are considered involuntary and may be excused. Involuntary intoxication falls under general exceptions, as it impairs judgment without the person’s voluntary action, while voluntary intoxication does not offer such protection.
Delirium tremens is a severe form of alcohol withdrawal that causes drastic mental and neurological changes. It often follows heavy drinking, particularly when accompanied by poor nutrition. Common among long-term heavy drinkers, especially those with more than a decade of habitual alcohol use, delirium tremens is triggered by factors like head injuries or infections. Sections 85 and 86 of the IPC describe intoxication as a mitigating factor in criminal cases. Section 85 provides a defence for those involuntarily intoxicated, while Section 86 addresses the liability of those who knowingly consume intoxicants and commit offenses under their influence.4
Precedents
BASUDEV V. STATE OF PEPSU5
A retired military officer, heavily intoxicated, attended a village wedding where he encountered a young boy sitting in a chair during the midday meal. When the boy refused to move from his seat at the officer’s command, the officer, in his drunken state, pulled out a pistol and shot him fatally. In court, the accused claimed he was unable to understand the situation due to his high level of intoxication. However, the court rejected this plea, reasoning that his ability to walk and navigate suggested he retained some awareness of his actions. Consequently, the court convicted him of murder under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
MAVARI SURYA SATYANARAYANA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH6
In this case, the accused, who suspected his wife of having an affair, became extremely intoxicated and violently attacked her. After initially failing to set her on fire by pouring kerosene, he pursued her, managed to catch her, and ignited her, leading to her death from the injuries. Despite his defense of intoxication, the Supreme Court dismissed it, noting that his actions—running after her and catching her—indicated he was sufficiently aware to carry out the crime. The court convicted him under Section 302 IPC, upgrading his punishment from a 10-year sentence under Section 304 Part II to life imprisonment or the death penalty. Additionally, the court considered the M’Naghten Rules, which assess a person’s mental state and intention at the time of the crime, reflecting on whether the accused’s mental capacity was impaired.
DPP V. BEARD7
Here, the accused sexually assaulted a minor while under the influence of alcohol. With one hand on the girl’s mouth and the other on her throat, he made contact. The girl died as a result of suffocation, and he begged for forgiveness, saying he didn’t realize what he had done. However, because the suffocation act was distinct from the rape act in that it was performed with the intention of killing the girl, the court found him guilty of murder under Section 300. Voluntary intoxication can be both a mitigating and an aggravating factor in criminal cases. When someone is extremely drunk and unable to form the intent needed to commit a crime, intoxication might reduce their level of culpability. However, in most situations, it is seen as an aggravating factor because it can encourage people to commit crimes and avoid punishment by claiming they were intoxicated. For habitual offenders, intoxication is particularly aggravating, as it reflects a pattern of behavior that often leads to higher alcohol consumption and, consequently, an increased crime rate.
Relevant Theories and Principles
Social Contract Theory:
The social contract theory suggests that when a person is drunk, they essentially forfeit their right to be excused from the consequences of their actions. By the end of the 20th century, many states began to impose stricter penalties on drunk drivers based on this principle, which aims to protect public safety. It’s well known that alcohol affects both thought and behaviour. Therefore, individuals have a responsibility to avoid situations where their actions could lead to harm. This is similar to the expectation that one should avoid engaging in dangerous activities, like shooting into a crowd or other risky behaviours. By promoting this sense of responsibility, society seeks to reduce risks and enhance overall safety8.
Partial responsibility doctrine:
Recognizing the difficulties in applying the specific intent doctrine, the Model Penal Code (MPC) in the United States developed a more refined system for evaluating culpability. The MPC categorizes culpability into four levels: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. This structure provides a clearer understanding of a defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime. Within this framework, a defendant may be exempt from criminal liability for actions that require specific intent. This means that if a crime necessitates purposeful or knowing intent, and the defendant was too intoxicated to form such intent, they could potentially avoid liability.
However, the MPC is strict when it comes to crimes committed recklessly or negligently. If someone acts recklessly or negligently while intoxicated, they are not excused from criminal responsibility. 9The rationale is that by choosing to become intoxicated, the individual knowingly put themselves in a position where reckless or negligent actions were possible, and therefore, they must face the consequences of their actions. This approach strives to balance fairness to the defendant with the importance of public safety, ensuring that intoxicated individuals are still held accountable for reckless or negligent behaviour that results in harm.
Dutch Courage Rule:
This theory suggests that people drink alcohol not only for enjoyment but also as a way to cope with depression, numb pain, or escape from the difficulties of life. In their minds, they may imagine themselves bravely confronting and overcoming these challenges. In this sense, alcohol can also be consumed to build up courage. However, drinking also creates a false sense of self-confidence and diminishes the ability to think clearly, which can lead to illegal actions. When someone chooses to drink—what is known as voluntary intoxication—they often have a plan in mind and use alcohol to muster the courage needed to carry it out. This concept is referred to as the “rule of courage,” and it specifically applies to situations involving voluntary intoxication. It highlights that a person not only intends to commit an act but may have also planned it beforehand.
Why is the issue of intoxication relevant and contentious?
Effect on Criminal Responsibility: Intoxication significantly influences a person’s mental state, which is a key factor in determining criminal liability. Since criminal responsibility typically hinges on both a wrongful act (actus reus) and a wrongful intent (mens rea), the question arises whether an intoxicated individual can form the necessary intent to be held fully accountable. This complicates the process of assigning guilt, particularly when differentiating between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
Voluntary vs. Involuntary Intoxication: The legal distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication is a major point of contention. While involuntary intoxication may be used as a defense, voluntary intoxication generally cannot, despite its potential to severely impair judgment. This raises questions of fairness, especially in cases where individuals may not have fully grasped the extent of their intoxication or its effects.
Diminished Capacity and Mental Health Issues: Intoxication can significantly impair cognitive functions, including judgment, memory, and decision-making. When combined with mental health issues like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, the impairment becomes even more profound. This intersection complicates legal assessments of intent and responsibility. Consider a case where an individual with bipolar disorder experiences a manic episode and consumes alcohol. The combination of heightened mania and intoxication might lead to erratic or violent
behaviour. In court, determining whether the individual’s actions were a result of their mental health condition or the intoxication itself can be challenging. This difficulty in pinpointing the exact cause of the behaviour raises questions about how to fairly assess their criminal intent and liability.
Cultural and Social Influence: Different cultures have varying norms and laws regarding alcohol consumption, which affects how intoxication is legally perceived and managed. In societies where alcohol is a central part of social life, legal systems might adopt more lenient approaches to intoxication-related offenses. In some European countries, where alcohol consumption is culturally integrated and regulated, the legal system might focus more on rehabilitation for alcohol-related offenses rather than punitive measures. 10For instance, a country might implement diversion programs for first-time offenders caught driving under the influence, offering treatment and education rather than imprisonment. This reflects a societal approach that prioritizes addressing the root causes of substance abuse over strict punishment.
Impact on Victims’ Right: When intoxication is used as a defense, it can result in reduced sentences or lesser charges, which might be perceived as unfair to victims and their families. This can undermine the sense of justice for those affected by the crime. In a high-profile case where a person was intoxicated while committing a violent crime, such as assault, and successfully used intoxication as a defense, they might receive a lesser charge like manslaughter instead of murder. The victim’s family might feel that the reduction in charges does not adequately reflect the severity of the crime, leading to perceptions of injustice and dissatisfaction with the legal outcome.
Intoxication and Consent in Sexual Offenses: The role of intoxication in sexual offenses complicates the determination of consent. Legal systems must assess whether the victim was capable of giving informed consent and whether the accused understood the nature of their actions while intoxicated. If both parties in a sexual assault case were intoxicated, the court faces a complex situation. If the accused argues that they believed the victim consented due to the victim’s actions while drunk, it becomes challenging to determine the validity of that consent. This scenario has led to legal reforms and debates about how to handle consent in cases involving intoxication, aiming to protect victims while addressing the complexities of impaired judgment.
Rehabilitation vs. Punishment: There is ongoing debate about whether individuals who commit crimes under the influence of substances should be rehabilitated or punished. Rehabilitation-focused approaches aim to address the underlying issue of substance abuse, while punitive measures focus on the crime itself. Drug courts are an example of a rehabilitative approach. These courts offer treatment programs for offenders whose crimes are related to substance abuse, such as possession or drug-related offenses. Critics argue that this approach might be too lenient for serious offenses, suggesting that it could allow repeat offenders to avoid more severe consequences. Supporters, however, believe it addresses the root cause of criminal behaviour, potentially reducing recidivism.
Judicial Discretion and Sentencing: Judges often have to use discretion when sentencing offenders involved in intoxication-related cases. Balancing the need for consistency with the specifics of each case can lead to varied outcomes, which can sometimes be perceived as unfair. A judge might reduce a sentence for a person convicted of drunk driving resulting in a fatal accident if the offender shows genuine remorse and demonstrates that their intoxication was an isolated incident. This leniency might be seen as controversial, especially if the reduction is viewed as insufficient given the gravity of the offense. Public and media reactions can highlight the tension between judicial discretion and perceived justice.
Advances in Technology and Forensic Evidence: Advances in forensic technology, such as more precise methods for measuring blood alcohol concentration (BAC), have complicated intoxication-related cases. Accurate measurement is crucial for determining an individual’s level of impairment and liability. In DUI cases, the timing of BAC testing is critical. If a test is administered several hours after the offense, the BAC might not accurately reflect the person’s level of intoxication at the time of driving. This can lead to disputes over the validity of the evidence, affecting sentencing and the fairness of the legal process.
Conclusion
The Indian Penal Code addresses intoxication under general exceptions, specifically in Sections 85 and 86. These sections outline the legal framework for determining whether an
intoxicated person can be held liable for a violation. A pre-trial test is conducted to assess this liability. In cases of voluntary intoxication, the individual’s knowledge is treated as if they were sober, applying the Dutch Courage Rule to guide the handling of such cases.
Legal precedents indicate that a person cannot escape liability for serious criminal offenses, even if they claim intoxication as a defense. The responsibility to prove this defense falls on the defendant before the offense is considered. While intoxication may sometimes be considered a mitigating or aggravating factor, recent legal developments suggest that if the crime is particularly serious, even involuntary intoxication will not exempt the individual from being held accountable.
