Voluntary Vs. Involuntary Intoxication
1. Introduction
Intoxication refers to the state of being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, affecting a person's mental and physical faculties.
In criminal law, intoxication affects criminal liability, particularly regarding mens rea (the guilty mind or intention to commit a crime).
2. Voluntary Intoxication
When a person intentionally consumes alcohol or drugs knowing their effect.
Usually, does not excuse criminal liability because the person willingly impaired their mental capacity.
However, it may be considered in specific intent crimes, where the prosecution must prove intention or knowledge.
3. Involuntary Intoxication
Occurs when a person is intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will (e.g., being drugged unknowingly).
Can be a valid defence if it causes incapacity to form mens rea.
The accused must show that the intoxication was not self-induced.
4. Legal Position in India (IPC & Judgments)
IPC doesn’t explicitly codify intoxication defences in a separate section but Sections 85 & 86 deal with acts done by a person in a state of intoxication due to unlawful acts of another.
Courts use common law principles to evaluate intoxication and mens rea.
Detailed Case Laws
1. R v. Kingston (UK, 1994)
Facts:
The accused was involuntarily intoxicated after someone secretly drugged him. While intoxicated, he committed a sexual offence.
Held:
The court held that involuntary intoxication does not negate criminal liability if the accused still had the intent to commit the crime.
Significance:
Shows that even involuntary intoxication will not be a defence if mens rea is proven.
2. Sheldrake v. DPP (UK, 2004)
Facts:
The accused was unaware he was under the influence of alcohol due to diabetes-induced hypoglycemia, causing involuntary intoxication.
Held:
The court ruled that involuntary intoxication is a valid defence only if it causes a lack of intent to commit the crime.
Significance:
Clarifies involuntary intoxication as a defence only when it removes the capacity for mens rea.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde (1965) AIR 881
Facts:
The accused committed murder while drunk. He voluntarily consumed alcohol.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that voluntary intoxication is no defence for a crime requiring general intent like murder.
Significance:
Indian courts treat voluntary intoxication as no excuse for general intent crimes, aligning with common law principles.
4. Queen v. Majewski (1977) AC 443 (UK House of Lords)
Facts:
The accused was heavily intoxicated and committed assault.
Held:
Voluntary intoxication is no defence to crimes of basic intent (like assault). However, it can negate specific intent crimes.
Significance:
This is a landmark case establishing the difference between basic intent and specific intent crimes in intoxication defences.
5. Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) AIR 218
Facts:
Accused voluntarily consumed liquor, then committed an offence.
Held:
The court held that voluntary intoxication cannot excuse criminal liability; the accused remains responsible.
Significance:
Reaffirms Indian position that voluntary intoxication is no defence.
6. R v. O’Grady (1987) 1 WLR 1765
Facts:
The accused, while intoxicated, mistakenly believed he was being attacked and killed another.
Held:
The defence of mistake due to intoxication was not allowed; voluntary intoxication does not excuse mistaken belief.
Significance:
Voluntary intoxication will not help even if it causes mistaken belief or diminished capacity.
7. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1994) 2 SCC 554
Facts:
The accused, intoxicated involuntarily by another person, committed an offence.
Held:
The court allowed involuntary intoxication as a defence if it causes total incapacity to form intent.
Significance:
Confirms involuntary intoxication as a valid defence under Indian law if it removes mens rea.
Summary Table
| Intoxication Type | Intention to Consume | Effect on Liability | Legal Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntary Intoxication | Yes | No defence for general intent offences. May negate specific intent if no mens rea formed | No defence for most crimes (Indian law) |
| Involuntary Intoxication | No | Valid defence if incapacity to form mens rea is proven | Valid defence if proven incapacity |
Conclusion
Voluntary intoxication generally does not excuse criminal liability in India, especially for general intent crimes like assault, murder, etc.
Involuntary intoxication can be a valid defence if the accused proves they were intoxicated without consent and lacked the mental capacity (mens rea).
Courts analyze the type of crime (specific vs. general intent) and whether intoxication actually prevented formation of intent.
Indian judiciary mostly follows UK common law principles on this subject, with a strong stance against voluntary intoxication defence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments