he 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 theguilty, not
even a single innocent man must be convicted. The defenses have been speciallyformulated so that they
are able to meet every circumstance. Though a defense does not rescuean individual from liability
totally, it does reduce the severity of his punishment for he can beconvicted for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder rather than murder. Intoxication is onesuch defense.I will start with dealing with
the origin of the concept, meaning the legal stand on the issue as ithas been. As the basic doctrine has
been laid down in the British cases, I will deal with theBritish aspect first. The project will be divided in
two sections, one that will deal with the Britishperspective and the other that will deal with the Indian
perspective. Intoxication is codified insection 85 and 86 of the Indian penal code.

What is drunkenness?

Drunkenness is a consequence of drinking intoxicating liquors to such an extent as to alter thenormal

condition of an individual and significantly reduce his capacity for rational action andconduct. It can be
asserted as a defense in civil and criminal actions in which the state of mind of the defendant is an
essential element to be established in order to obtain legal relief.

HYPOTHESIS:

Involuntary intoxication can act as a defense under Indian Penal Code but in cases of
Voluntaryintoxication

mens rea

is also taken into consideration.

OBJECTIVES:

To do a Complete overall study on Section 85 & Section 86.

To study various landmark cases held in Supreme Court of India and house of lords
Research Methodology

The quality and value of research depends upon the proper and particularmethodology adopted for the
completion of research work. Looking at thevastness of the research topic - historical, doctrinal legal
research methodology

has been adopted. To make an authenticated study of the research topic “

Scopeof Intoxication under Section 85 and 86

” enormous amount of study material is

required. The relevant information and data necessary for its completion hasbeen gathered from
secondary sources available in the books, journals,periodicals, research articles and proceedings of the
seminars, websites.Keeping in view the need of present research, various cases filed in the

Supreme Court as well as in the High Court’s on t

he issue of and the judgments therein have also been used as a source of information. The judgments
pronounced in the cases have been analyzed in detail and used as ameans of diagnosis to know the
basic lacunae arising in the way of providingthe remedy in case of Review of Judgment.

CHAPTER-2:

The British Perspective

Voluntary Intoxication

Even though voluntary intoxication means that someone has consumed intoxicating substanceswith
their own free will, he may still have a defense to the offence with which he is charged. Theintent in case
of a crime is very important and even though a person maybe voluntarilyintoxicated, the very fact that
he is unable to form the required intent works in his favor. Theseverity of the punishment is reduced
due to this defense; for instance, an individual will bepunished for the crime of manslaughter rather
than the more serious crime of murder. A crimerequiring specific intent may be reduced to one
requiring basic intent. An intoxicant does not

have any separate „class‟ but it refers to any substance, which has an effect on the consciousness

or the decision-making capacity of a person.

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 stateof
drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken
intoconsideration in order to determine whether he had in fact formed the necessary intent
toconstitute the particular crime. Where a specific intent is necessary, if a man is able to prove thathe
was so intoxicated that he was unable to form the intent, he cannot be convicted of thatparticular
offence.

Basic Intent/ Specific Intent Dichotomy

The rule was laid down by lord Simon of Glaisdale. However he laid down a very complicatedrule. To
sum it up briefly and simply, the rule provides that some offences do not require aspecific intent or
motive. Even a basic intent of recklessness or negligence would be sufficient insome crimes. For
instance, in case of manslaughter no specific intent is required.The laws in the early nineteenth century
concerning intoxication were very stringent. In fact,according to a statement made by Earl of
Birkenhead, voluntary intoxication was considered an

aggravation rather than a defence. If a person was consuming alcohol, knowing fully well that itwould
impair his ability to think clearly, then he will be situated in no better condition than asober man in the
judgment of his criminal conduct.

Thankfully, the rule has been mercifully relaxed and a person‟s punishment, though cannot be

eradicated completely, can be reduced in severity. Further illustrations can be provided with thehelp of
case studies.

Nevertheless, voluntary drunkenness protects an individual in twocases:

There are some crimes which demand the explicit requirement of a specific intent. In such cases,when
the accused has had so much to drink that he is unable to form the necessary intent, then hecannot be
blamed for the commission of the crime. The punishment of the accused can bereduced due to this
defence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We areall well aware of the
effects of alcohol on the human mind. Since time immemorial, alcohol hasbeen associated with crimes
of the worst possible kind, and we are all familiar with the derangedstate of an alcoholic. A case can be
cited at this instance. In a case of wife burning, the accusedhad consumed alcohol, and after having a tiff
with his wife, had set her on fire after pouringkerosene on her. She had resisted the flames, and had
tried to run away, upon which he hadgrabbed her and set her aflame again. The way the law deals with
any criminal situation dependson the facts of a particular case, and here the facts prove that the
husband was not intoxicatedenough to be unaware of what he was doing and the fact that he pulled the
wife back and dousedher with kerosene proves this. Hence in this case the accused was convicted for
murder.15In some instances the mind of the individual becomes diseased due to drinking, and the
disease isto such an extent that he becomes incapable of taking responsibility for his own acts or
eventhinking clearly

for that matter. The principle rests in the M‟Naughton rules that were relied

upon in such a case. A common example of a mental state caused due to excessive drinking is

„delirium tremens‟. If a man gets drunk due to the tricks or fraud of another person,

he will beexcused.

CHAPTER-3:

The Indian Perspective

As is well known, the Indian Penal Code is the foundation for the criminal law in India, andSection 85
and 86 deal with intoxication.

SECTION

85

Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will: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 ; provided that
the things which intoxicated him was administered to himwithout his knowledge or against his will.

A man in order to claim exemption from criminal liability under Section 85, IPC 1860 on theground of
involuntary drunkenness must establish that he was (i) incapable of knowing thenature of the act, or (ii)
that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law, and (iii) thatthe thing which intoxicated
him was given to him without his knowledge or against his will.SYNOPSIS1.

Scope2.
Onus to prove intoxication3.

Mistake while drunk 4.

Implications of section 855.

Intoxication- proving of.6.

Rape case- Defence of intoxication7.

State of Intoxication

Indian Penal Code, 1860

1.

Scope of Section 85

Section 85 applies only in cases of involuntary intoxication (drunkenness). Voluntarydrunkenness is no

excuse for the commission of the crime.

Where the accused could not show that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of
thecommission of the offence, the benefit of Section 85 was not given.

3
Consequently, where the intoxication is administered to the accused by stratagem or fraud of another,
as when mixed with his food or drink and given to him in confidence he is excused.

Where the accused consumed liquor, quarreled with his wife and thereafter poured kerosene onher and
set fire, it was held that the benefit under section 85 was not available.

On this view if friends or relatives persuade a person to drink a little more than he can reasonably digest,
hecannot complain that he was made to drink a little more than he can reasonably digest, he
cannotcomplain that he was made to drink against his will.

Where an accused takes liquor to alleviatepain, it is not a case of involuntary drunkenness and the
accused is not protected by Section 85.

Drunkenness may in extreme cases result in delirium, tremors or insanity- whether temporary
orpermanent and if it is does so, the offender will be held not guilty.

Unless drunkenness either amounts to unsoundness of mind so as to enable insanity to bepleaded by

way of defence, or the degree of drunkenness is such as to establish incapacity in theaccused to form
the intent necessary to constitute the crime, drunkenness is neither a defence nora palliation.

Where the evidence was lacking to show accuser‟s incapacity to form requisite

intention, the accused was held guilty under Section 302 and not under Section 304, Part II.

10

Where the accused caused death in state of voluntary intoxication he was held liable underSection 302
and not under Section 304. Part II.

11

Where the accused consumed liquor scolded his

2
Prabhunath v. State, AIR 1957 AII 667 (DB)

Sohan Manjhi v. State, AIR 1970 Pat 303 : 170 Cri Lj 1245 (DB)

Jethuram v. State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 at p. 243

Venkappa, K. Chowdari v. State of Karnataka, 1996 Cri LJ 15 (Kant) (DB)

Jethuram v State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 at p. 243, 244 (DB)

Jethuram v State of M.P., AIR 1960 MP 242 (DB)

Samman Singh v. Emperor,AIR 1941 lah 454 (DB)

Wariam Singh v. Crown AIR 1926 Lah 428 : 27 Cri Lj 764

10

Basdeo v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 : Cri Lj 919

11

Ramsingh v.State of Gujarat (1985) 1 Guj LR 40

Scribd

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!

Start Free Trial

Cancel Anytime.

wife, set fire to her, and when she extinguished the fire, set fire to her again resulting in herdeath, the
offence fell under section 302 and not under Section 304, Part-II.

12

Voluntary drunkenness is no defence under Section 85,m but it may be taken into considerationwhile
awarding punishment.

13

Where the abnormal behavior of the deceased was due toexcessive drunkenness, the protection under
Section 85 held not available.

14

2.

Onus to prove Intoxication

The onus of proof about reason of intoxication due to which the accused had become incapableof
having particular knowledge in forming the particular intention was on the accused. Basicallythere are
three propositions as regards the scope and ambit of Section 85, IPC.

15

3.

Mistake while drunk

The taking of drink could not itself be excuse of commission of a crime and it was not a defence

that a man‟s mind was so affected by drink that he more readily gave
way to passion or that hewould not have acted as he did had he been sober nor will drunkenness be
defence in case of strict liability, since if an honest and reasonable mistake by sober person cannot
afford a defence,a mistake while drunk cannot do so.

16

4.

Implications of Section 85

Merely because the accused claimed to be drunk at the relevant point of time could never betaken an
excuse for his brutual and diabolic acts and the plea of drunkenness did not in any waydilute not
because of what is provided in section 85, IPC but because one after the another fivewere taken and
that too of four young children.

17

12

M.S.Satyanarayana v. State of A.P., 1995 Cri Lj 686 (AP) (DB)

13

Samman Singh v. Emperor,AIR 1941 lah 454 (DB)

14

Deba Dip v. State, 1994 Cri LJ NOC 154 (Ori)

15

Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) Crimes 62 (SC)

16

Shankar Jaisware v. State of West Bengal 2007 Cri Lj3271 (SC)

17

Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) Crimes 62 (SC)

5.

Intoxication- Proving of

The normal presumption is that a man intends the normal consequences of his acts. In a casewhere the
defence is of drinking it is for the accused to lead evidence to rebut such presumptionby giving evidence
of his drunkenness and proving the degree of his intoxication to show thathis mind was so affected by
drink that he was not in a position to form any intent essential toconstitute the crime.

18

6.

Rape case- Defence of Intoxication

Where the evidence of the prosecutor corroborated by the evidence of her husband that theaccused
came all of a sudden under influence of liquor and grabbed her and raped her and therewas no evidence
that the accused was under intoxication and he was unable to know the natureof his act, the accused
was not held entitled to the benefit of section 85 of IPC.

19

7.

State of Intoxication

What is the state of intoxication reffered to in Section 85 and Section 86 of the Penal Code?There are of
course many varying degrees of drunkenness which culminate in a state in which

the person becomes incapable of knowing the nature of any act. The word “state of intoxication”

in Section 86 can only mean intoxication which renders a person incapable of knowing thenature of the
act in question or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law when hecommits. It would be
extremely dangerous to extend the protection under Section 86, Penal Codeto persons who commit
serious offence under the influence of liquor in varying stages anddifferentiate culpability in their favour
as opposed to similar offence by perfectly sober persons.-In re : Balaswami, AIR 1953 Mad 827.
Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the commissionof offence.Drunkenness makes no difference in
the knowledge with which a man is charged and a manknew what the natural consequences of his acts
where it must be presumed to have intended tohave caused them. Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code
deals with the question of knowledge

18

Dasa Kandha v. The State 1976 Cr Lj 2010

19

Prem Singh v. State, 2007 Cri LJ (NOC) 245 (Uttranchal)

possessed by an accused person at the time he commits the offence and leaves quite open thequestion
of intention. There must be some material on the record to show that the accused wasunder the
influence of liquor at the time he commited the offence. So, no question of drunkenness arises.

20

. It must be proved that the accused was so much intoxicated at the time of the incident that he was
beside his mind altogether for the time being, otherwise he would not getthe benefit of Section 85 and
Section 86.

21

SECTION

86

In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, aperson
who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had thesame
knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing whichintoxicated him
was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

22
Synopsis

1.

Scope2.

Requisite to claim benefit of Section 863.

Benefit of Section 86- Ruled out.

Scope

Section 86 is an exception to Section 85. Section 86 does not permit intoxication of a lesserdegree.

23

But so far as intent or intention is concerned, the same must be gathered from the attendinggeneral
circumstances of the case paying due regards to the degree of intoxication. Was the manbesides his
mind altogether for the time being? If so it would not be possible to fix him with therequisite intention.
But if he had not gone so deep in drinking, and from the facts it could befound that he knew what he
was about to do, the court can apply the rule that a man is presumed

20

Sohan Manhi v. State, AIR 1970 Pat 303: 1970 Cr Lj 245

21

Babu Sadashiv Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 1986 Cr Lj 739 (Bom).

22
Indian Penal Code, 1860

23

State of Maharashtra v. Ashok, 1987 Cri LJ 1416 (Bom.)(DB)

to intend the natural consequences of his act or acts.

24

Self- induced intoxication in a case of manslaughter is no defence.

25

Where the accused in drunken state caused fracture of skull bone bystriking stick on the head of the
deceased resulting in death, accused intended to cause suchinjury as was likely to cause death, was held
guilty under section 304, Part I, though chargeunder 302 had not been framed against the accused.

26

The onus of establishing the plea under Section 86 lies on the accused.

27

Where the accused was heavily drunk and was incapable of forming the requisite intent whichcould
bring his act within the ambit of Section 302, in view of the provisions of Section 86, theaccused could
be imputed with the knowledge of his act.

28

Where in case of rape, there was no evidence showing any signs of drunkenness or alcoholhaving been
consumed by accused at the time of committing offence of rape, benefit of Sectioncould not be
extended to him. His defence plea was rejected and he was convicted for offence of rape under Section
376, IPC.

29

There is no evidence available on the record as to quantum of alcohol consumed by the appellantexcept
the observation of the witnesses that he was under the influence of liquor. No one statedthat he not in
senses and has lost self- control. It was held that it is in evidence that immediatelyafter the incident he
walked the distance to the house of a witness and concealed the weapon of offence and wearing
apparels. It could not as such be said that there was no intention on the partof appellant and he was out
of his senses on account of intoxication.

30

It is clear that a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt withas if he
had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.

31

24

Basdeo v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 : Cri Lj 919

25

Manmath v. State of Orissa, 1989 (10)Crimes 17 (Ori)

26

Padika Janu v. State of Orissa, 1989 Cri Lj NOC 104 (Ori)

27

Dasa Kandhu v. State, 1976 Cut LT 499

28

Entrique F. Rio v. State, 1975 Cri LJ 1337 (Goa)

29

Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of A.P., 1997 (2) Crimes 19 (AP)(DB)

30

Sheikh Falser v. State 2006 Cri Lj 1105 at p. 1107 (1107)

31

Shankar jaisware v. State of West Bengal, 2007 Cri LJ 3271 (SC)

Requisite to claim benefit of Section 86

The person claiming benefit under Section 86 has to prove that thing which intoxicated him
wasadministered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

32

Benefit of Section 86

Ruled out.

In the instant case the husband under influence of liquor beating his wife and throwing burninglamp on
her face and he himself taking liquor held not entitled to claim benefit under Section86.

33

There is always certain guilty knowledge or intention, which forms part of the definition of
manyoffences; this section deals specially to find solutions for such cases. A person who is intoxicatedis
considered to have the same level of knowledge as a person who is sober. Cases have to bedifferently
judged because some focus on the intent of the individual while others focus on theknowledge that the
individual possesses. It must be borne in mind that though an intoxicatedperson is credited with the
same knowledge as a similar sane person, this presumption cannot bemade for his intent.Drunkenness
does not make a very big difference to the knowledge with which a man is credited,and a very popular
argument based on the above stated notion is that since a person will haveknowledge of his deed, he
also has the intention to commit it. However, this does not apply to acase where an individual is so
drunk that he is unable to from the required intent. In case of R vKingston, the case that I have already
elucidated, the principle that we follow as well as was laiddown that if an individual was able to form
the required intent even though he was intoxicated,he will be convicted.So far as the question of
knowledge is concerned, the court must adopt the same stand as givento a normal human being, but
the question of intent adds complications. Thus, in a case wherethe accused slit the abdomen of his
friend, he was excluded from liability due to section 86 of theIndian Penal Code, simply because he was
not able to form the necessary intent.

32

Gautam Bhila Ahire v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 Cri LJ 4073 (Bom.)

33

Gautam Bhila Ahire v. State of Maharashtra, 2010 Cri LJ 4073 (Bom.)

CHAPTER-4: CASE LAWS

Voluntary intoxication and crimes of basic intent

For crimes that require only basic intent, intoxication is no defence. The case law is affirmedin

DPP v Majewski

34

[1976]

.The accused had taken barbiturates, amphetamines and alcohol and

subsequently assaulted a publican and three policemen. He was convicted of assault and hisfollowing
appeal was dismissed.The judgement from Majewski was that, if the offence charged is one of basic
intent, the accusedmay be convicted of it if he was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of committing the
offence,even though, because of intoxication, he did not have the

mens rea

normally required for theconviction of that offence, and despite the fact that he was in a state of
automatism. Additionally,the House of Lords recognised in Majewski that, for a person charged with an
offence of basicintent, the prosecution does not need to prove the

mens rea

required for that offence and theaccused can be convicted simply on proof that he committed the
offence (the

actus reus

).This leads on to the complex concept of recklessness. Certain crimes, such as attempted murder,can
only be committed intentionally; others may be committed recklessly. The distinction isimportant. A
distinction must also exist between recklessness and negligence, so that the law canpunish reckless
wrongdoing, but, apart from certain crimes, it can exempt negligent wrongdoingfrom criminal liability.

The type of recklessness recognised by the majority of the House of Lords is termed „Caldwell

type‟ recklessness following their Lordships‟ decision in

R v Caldwell

[1982]

.An individual is

Caldwell-type reckless with regard to a particular risk that attends his actions if the risk isobvious to an
ordinary prudent person who has not given thought to the possibility of there beingany such risk, or if
the individual has recognised that there is some risk and has neverthelesspersisted in his actions.The
effect of the ruling in Majewski that proof of

mens rea

is not required when an accused whois voluntarily intoxicated is charged with an offence of basic intent
is reduced when Caldwell-type recklessness suffices for that offence. In

R v Caldwell

, Lord Diplock took the view that

34

[1976] 2 AII ER 142 (HL)

classification of offences into those of basic or specific intent was irrelevant where Caldwell-type
recklessness sufficed for

mens rea

. The distinction between such offences is important,however, if the intoxicated person who is charged
with an offence of basic intent has thoughtabout a possible risk and wrongly concluded it to be
negligible. In this case, a loophole inCaldwell-

type recklessness (termed „the lacuna‟) means that he could not be convicted of

recklessness. Indeed, he would be acquitted unless convicted under the Majewski ruling on thebasis that
the
actus reus

of an offence of basic intent has been committed.

Basdev v. State of Pepsu

35

A retired military officer was charged with the murder of a young boy of 15 or 16. Both of themand
others of the same village attended a marriage party. All of them went to the house of thebride to
attend the mid-day meal. Some had settled down in their seats and some had not. Amilitary who was
very drunk and intoxicated, asked the young boy to step aside a little so that hemay occupy a convenient
seat. But, when he did not move, the military officer whipped out apistol and shot him in the abdomen.
The injury proved fatal. The evidence showed that theaccused sometimes staggered and sometimes was
incoherent in his talk. But it was shown that hewas capable of moving himself independently and was
capable of talking coherently as well. Theevidence proved that he came on his own to the house of the
bride and that he made the choice of his own seat after injuring the deceased, he attempted to get away
and was secured a shortdistance from the scene. When he was secured, he realized what he had done
and asked forforgiveness. All these facts, according to the SC, go to prove that there was no proved
incapacityon the accused to form the intention to cause bodily harm sufficient in the ordinary course of
thenature to cause death. In view of his failure tom prove such incapacity, the law presumed that
heintended the natural and probable consequences of his act. In other words, he intended to
inflictbodily injuries on the deceased and the bodily injuries so intended to be inflicted, was sufficientin
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused was found guilty of murder.

35

AIR 1956 SC 488

Mavari Surya Sathya Narayan v. State of AP

The accused and the deceased were married for 11 years. He was an alcoholic and quarreledoften with
her. One day he came home drunk and asked her to sign on some blank papers. Whenshe refused, he
pulled her by her hair and dragged her into the room and attempted to set fire onher. The deceased put
out the flames and tried to run away. The accused again pulled her, pouredkerosene and set fire to her.
The deceased died of the burns. The Andhra Pradesh High Court,relying on the SC decision in

Basdev v. State of Pepsu

, held that having regard to the facts, it

couldn‟t be said that the accused was in total loss of mental power and hence the provisions of

s.85 will not apply.

Venkappa Kannappa Chowdhari v. State of Karnataka

The accused, quarrelsome by nature, was addicted to liquor. The son of the accused died in amotor
accident. The accused wanted the compensation amount of 10000, which was in the name

of the accused‟s wife. On the day of the decision, he came home drunk and asked his wife to

withdraw the fixed deposit amount. When his wife refused to comply, he beat her, took a tin of
kerosene oil, sprinkled it on her and set her on fire. His wife screamed and the neighbors took herto the
hospital. A dying declaration was recorded. The accused took the plea of incapacity due tointoxication
u/s 85 IPC. His plea was rejected because he had voluntarily consumed alcohol. Hewas convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment.

CHAPTER-5: CONCLUSION

After much research on the topic, it can be said that intoxication is not a very strong defence, andeven if
it serves to mitigate the severity of a punishment, it cannot exculpate a person fromliability. This is
essential because absolute and cold logic cannot be applied to human affairs, asthey require certain
flexibility in their dealing. A common man will not have much regard for thelaw if a drunken man batters
him, and the man gets away with his conduct merely because hewas too intoxicated to think clearly.In
India as well, the law that has been followed till date has its foundation in the British law. Thefirst
categorical difference is that in case of British law, the defence of intoxication is notcodified under any
specific section, while under the Indian law it has been clearly codified insections eighty-five and eighty-
six of the Indian Penal Code.In Indian law, the clause that the drug has to be administered against the
will of the individual isgiven much more importance than it is under the British law. Also, the dichotomy
betweenspecific intent and basic intent is given a lot of importance in case of British law. The severity of
the punishment an individual can be given is reduced due to this.

In Indian law as well this exception is applicable, as well as an exception in case the individual‟s

mind is diseased. This portion of our law is very similar to the British law; as a matter of fact thecases
that have been cited as authority are also British.The second factor that can be considered in the case is
that in the Indian criminal law, thedifference has been made very clear between the intention and
knowledge of an individual. Evenin British law, the specific intent and the basic intent dichotomy has
been elaborated, but theyhave not given an exclusive difference between the knowledge and intent.The
English law has evolved over a series of cases and it has come a long way from the rigid lawthat it was
earlier. In the early nineteenth century, alcohol would never have been able to serve asa defence.
Rather it would have had a reverse effect and this shows us how much the law hasprogressed in this
aspect over a period of time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCESIndian Penal Code, 1860SECONDARY SOURCES-BOOKS & ARTICLESRatanlal and

Dhirajlal, Law of Crimes, (New Delhi: Bharat Law House, 2002).P.S.A. Pillai, Criminal Law, (New Delhi:
Butterworths, 2000).K.D.Gaur, Criminal Law: Cases and Materials, (New Delhi: Butterworths, 1999).

Articles

Ewan Paton, “Reformulating the Intoxication Rules: The Law Commission‟s Report”, [1995]

Crim. L.R. 387.

Graham Virgo, “The Law Commission Consultation Paper on

Intoxication and Criminal

Liability”, [1993] Crim. L.R. 420.

Spencer, JR (1994) 'Involuntary Intoxication is a Defence' 53 Cambridge Law JournalGlanville Williams,

“Involuntary intoxication”, (1989) 105 L.Q.R. 387.

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.

Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.

Read Free For 30 Days

No Commitment. Cancel anytime.

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Share on Facebook, opens a new windowShare on Twitter, opens a new windowShare on LinkedIn,
opens a new windowShare with Email, opens mail clientCopy Text

Related Interests

Recklessness (Law)

Mens Rea

Intention (Criminal Law)

Deviance (Sociology)

Crimes

Related Searches

Ipc Project

Documents Similar To ‌Intoxication in IPC

Carousel Next

Indian Penal Code-llb i Year

Indian Penal Code-llb i Year

UPLOADED BY

Naveen Kumar

Property Law Including Transfer of Property Act