SECTION 86

OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE

SECTION 86:
Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one
who is intoxicated.
BARE LANGUAGE:
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 knowl-edge or against his will.
Section 86 simply states that you can take intoxication as a defence to a crime you have
committed, where to commit a crime, intention and knowledge is required. Only exception is that
you are intoxicated by someone else without your consent or knowledge.
INTRODUCTION:
The topic that I have selected falls under the category of defenses. In certain instances due to
circumstances or other reasons that are beyond an individual’s control he indulges in criminal
behavior. This also forms an integral part of the law because as it is imperative to punish the
guilty, not even a single innocent man must be convicted. The defenses have been specially
formulated so that they are able to meet every circumstance. Though a defense does not rescue
an individual from liability totally, it does reduce the severity of his punishment for he can be
convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than murder. Intoxication is one
such defense.
This section is an exception to Sec. 85 which gives protection from crimes committed when
intoxicated.
The difference between sec. 85 and 86 is that for 85, the crime need not be preceded by
knowledge and intent while for 86, knowledge and intent are mandatory.
For instance, if a drunkard walks into railway station without a ticket and he is so drunk as he is
incapable to understand where he is or what is he doing, sec. 85 would attract.
If drunkard, tries to kill someone or causes serious injury to someone else, no matter how drunk
he was, it would be presumed that he was aware of what he was doing and hence Sec. 86 would
apply.

What amounts to a state of intoxication?

It was in DPP v Beard that the rule for what amounts to a state of intoxication was laid down.
Lord Birkenhead: where a specific intent is a specific element in the 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 necessary intent to
constitute the particular crime. Where a specific intent is necessary, if a man is able to prove that
he was so intoxicated that he was unable to form the intent, he cannot be convicted of that
particular offence.

EXPLANATION
Section 85 deals with the defence of intoxication, this section talks about matters relating to
presumption in certain cases where the question of intoxication is involved. There are many
sections in the Indian Penal Code wherein an accused can be held guilty only when a particular
knowledge or intent is proved against him by the prosecution.
There are many sections in the Indian Penal Code wherein an accused can be held guilty only
when a particular knowledge or intent is proved against him by the prosecution.

In such cases if it is proved that the accused had acted in a state of intoxication, it shall be
presumed that he knew the consequences of his act in the same manner as if he had not been
intoxicated unless he proves that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him
without his knowledge or against his will.

The section lays down the law regarding presumption of knowledge only and is silent about
presumption of intention which in effect means that in such cases there is no presumption with
regard to intention of the accused. Therefore, in such cases the particular intention against the
accused is to be proved by the prosecution in the same manner as is done in the normal cases.
Supposing A is charged with the offence of causing the murder of B, and A pleads the defence of
intoxication under section 85 of the Code.

Here, if the prosecution wishes to get A convicted of the murder on the basis of knowledge as
given under clause 4 of section 300, the Court will deal with the case as if A had the same
knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless A proves that the thing
which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Conclusion
After much research on the topic, it can be said that intoxication is not a very strong defence, and
even if it serves to mitigate the severity of a punishment, it cannot exculpate a person from
liability. This is essential because absolute and cold logic cannot be applied to human affairs, as
they require certain flexibility in their dealing. A common man will not have much regard for the
law if a drunken man batters him, and the man gets away with his conduct merely because he
was too intoxicated to think clearly.

SAKSHI BHANDARI
B.A.LLB (C.L)
R154216133
500056019