intoxication

Section 23 BNS (old s.85 IPC) protects a person who, at the time of the act, was incapable of knowing its nature or that it was wrong or contrary to law, because of intoxication administered without his knowledge or against his will. Only involuntary intoxication is a complete defence, and only if it produced that degree of incapacity.

Voluntary intoxication is no defence. Section 24 BNS (old s.86) provides that where an offence requires a particular knowledge or intent, a person who was voluntarily intoxicated is treated as having the same knowledge as if he had not been intoxicated. The section speaks of knowledge, not intention. In Basdev v. State of PEPSU (1956) the Supreme Court held that intention must be gathered from the circumstances, but that the accused could escape only by showing he was so drunk as to be incapable of forming the intent.

Example

Because the accused had chosen to drink, intoxication was no defence, and s.24 BNS attributed to him the knowledge of a sober person.

In Indian law

• Sections 23–24, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (old ss.85–86 IPC)
• Basdev v. State of PEPSU, 1956 INSC 25

See also

insanity · general exceptions · mens rea

Read more in the study notes

• Crime: meaning, elements and stages (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
• General exceptions: mistake, accident, necessity and incapacity (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
• General exceptions: consent, good faith, compulsion and trifles (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
• The right of private defence (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
• Rape and sexual offences (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
• Abetment of suicide, organised crime and terrorist act (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)