Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Court talked about Section 86 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a single judge Bench consisting of Justice Natwarlal H Bhagwati. 

Facts   

• The appellant, Basdev, was a retired military Jamadar from the village of Harigarh. 
• He was charged with the murder of a young boy, Maghar Singh, aged about 15 or 16. 
• Both the appellant and the deceased, along with others from their village, attended a wedding in another village. 
• On 12th March, 1954, they all went to the bride's house for a midday meal. 
• Some guests had settled in their seats, while others had not. 
• The appellant asked Maghar Singh to move aside to secure a convenient seat, but the boy did not comply. 
• In response, the appellant pulled out a pistol and shot Maghar Singh in the abdomen, leading to his death. 
• The wedding party had indulged in heavy drinking, and the appellant was excessively drunk. 
• According to witness Wazir Singh Lambardar, the appellant was almost unconscious due to intoxication. 
• The Sessions Judge considered the appellant’s extreme intoxication and lack of motive or premeditation. 
• As a result, the appellant was sentenced to transportation for life instead of the death penalty. 
• The PEPSU High Court at Patiala dismissed his appeal. 
• Special leave was granted by the Supreme Court, limited to determining whether the offence fell under Section 302 or Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) considering Section 86 of the IPC.

Issue Involved

• Whether offence under Section 302 or Section 304 of IPC was committed considering Section 86 of IPC? 

Observations 

• The first part of Section 86 of IPC speaks of intent or knowledge while the second part deals with only with the knowledge. 
• The Court observed that so far as knowledge is concerned the intoxicated person must be attributed the same knowledge as if he was sober. 
  • However, so far as intention is concerned it must be gathered from the attending circumstances of the case.  
• The Court cited the case of Rex v. Meade (1909) wherein it was held that if the mind of a person is so obscured by drink that the reason is dethroned, and the man is incapable of forming the intent it justifies the reduction of charge from murder to manslaughter. 
• The Court further cited the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard (1920), wherein the Court laid down the following points: 
  • That insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to the crime charged; 
  • That evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had this intent; 
  • That evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, and merely establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts. 
• The Court in the facts of the case applied the law and held that: 
  • The evidence indicates that the appellant was intoxicated but still had control over his actions. 
  • While he staggered at times and spoke incoherently, he was also able to move independently and speak coherently. 
  • After shooting the deceased, he attempted to escape but was caught a short distance away. 
  • Upon being secured, he realized what he had done and asked for forgiveness. 
  • Since he failed to prove his incapacity, the law presumes that he intended the natural and probable consequences of his act. 
• The Court thus, in the facts of the present case held that the offence shall not be reduced from murder to culpable homicide amounting to murder under second part of Section 304 of IPC. 

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment which discusses the exception of intoxication as provided under Section 86 of IPC. 
• The Court laid down that what has to be established is the incapacity to commit the offence. If a person fails to prove his incapacity the law presumes that he intended natural consequences of his act.