Qui peccat ebrius luat sobrius – He who does wrong when drunk must be punished when sober.
The Latin maxim "Qui peccat ebrius, luat sobrius" translates to "He who does wrong when drunk must be punished when sober." This principle underscores that voluntary intoxication does not absolve an individual of criminal liability. In legal systems like India, England, and the United States, this doctrine is reflected in statutes and case law.
🧭 Legal Framework
🇮🇳 India – Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Under the IPC, the defense of intoxication is addressed in Sections 85 and 86:
Section 85 (Involuntary Intoxication): If a person is involuntarily intoxicated and commits an offense, they may not be held criminally responsible, provided they were incapable of understanding the nature of their act.
Section 86 (Voluntary Intoxication): Voluntary intoxication is not a defense for crimes requiring specific intent or knowledge. The law presumes that an intoxicated person possesses the same intent and knowledge as if they were sober.
In Bablu v. State of Rajasthan (2006), the Supreme Court held that evidence of intoxication and the accused's incapacity to form wrongful intent must be considered. However, voluntary intoxication does not absolve criminal liability.
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
In DPP v. Majewski (1976), the House of Lords ruled that voluntary intoxication is not a defense for crimes requiring basic intent. The court emphasized that individuals who self-induce intoxication are presumed to have the necessary intent for the offense
Similarly, in R v. Lipman (1970), the court held that self-induced intoxication is no defense to manslaughter if the loss of control was foreseeable.
🇺🇸 United States
In Colorado, Section 18-1-804(1), C.R.S., codifies the principle that intoxication is not a defense to criminal charges. The statute reflects the maxim "Qui peccat ebrius, luat sobrius", emphasizing that voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct.
⚖️ Case Law Analysis
Reniger v. Fogossa: This case illustrates that if a person commits a felony while drunk, they are still punishable, even if they lacked understanding due to intoxication. The court held that the ignorance caused by voluntary intoxication does not exempt one from liability.
Basdev v. State of Pepsu (1956): The Supreme Court of India ruled that even if the accused was under the influence of alcohol, he was not so impaired as to be incapable of forming the necessary intent for murder. Therefore, the offense was not reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC.
S v. Chretien (1981): In South Africa, the Appellate Division held that even automatism arising from voluntary intoxication may constitute an absolute defense if the accused lacked criminal capacity. However, subsequent legislation limited this defense, requiring proof of lack of capacity due to self-induced intoxication.
🧠 Legal Rationale
The maxim "Qui peccat ebrius, luat sobrius" reflects the principle that voluntary intoxication is a self-induced condition. Legal systems generally do not allow intoxication to excuse criminal behavior because it undermines personal responsibility. The rationale is that individuals should be accountable for their actions, even if impaired by substances they voluntarily consumed.
✅ Conclusion
The principle "Qui peccat ebrius, luat sobrius" serves as a reminder that voluntary intoxication does not absolve individuals from criminal liability. Legal systems across various jurisdictions uphold this doctrine to ensure accountability and discourage the use of intoxication as an excuse for unlawful conduct.
RELATED Blog
0 comments