1. Introduction to Intoxication
Meaning of Intoxication
Intoxication refers to a condition in which a person’s mental or physical faculties are affected by the consumption or administration of alcohol, drugs, or another intoxicating substance. The substance may affect the person’s capacity to understand the nature of the act, appreciate its consequences, or form the particular intention or knowledge required for the commission of an offence.
In criminal law, intoxication becomes important because criminal liability generally depends not merely upon the physical commission of an act but also, in appropriate cases, upon the existence of a required mens rea, such as intention, knowledge, or awareness. Therefore, the law has to determine whether the accused was sufficiently capable of forming the required mental element at the time of committing the act.
Intoxication in Criminal Law: General Principle
The general principle of criminal law is that a person should ordinarily be held responsible for acts committed voluntarily. A person cannot normally escape criminal liability merely by claiming that he was intoxicated when he committed the offence.
The law makes an important distinction between voluntary intoxication and involuntary intoxication. Where a person voluntarily consumes alcohol or drugs and subsequently commits an offence, the mere fact that he became intoxicated does not ordinarily provide him with a complete defence. A person cannot generally create a state of intoxication voluntarily and then use that self-created condition as an excuse for criminal conduct.
The underlying principle is that criminal law does not ordinarily permit a person to take advantage of a condition that he voluntarily created himself. At the same time, the law recognises that a person who was involuntarily intoxicated may lack the mental capacity necessary for criminal responsibility.
Intoxication and Criminal Liability
Intoxication has a direct connection with the mental element of an offence. Criminal liability generally requires the prosecution to establish the elements of the particular offence, which may include intention, knowledge, recklessness, or another legally prescribed mental state.
When a person is intoxicated, his ability to form intention or possess knowledge may be affected. However, the effect of intoxication depends upon the particular offence and the statutory requirements applicable to it.
For example, suppose a person voluntarily consumes a large quantity of alcohol and later commits an act requiring a particular intention. He cannot automatically argue that intoxication completely eliminates his criminal liability. The law may attribute to him the knowledge that a sober person would ordinarily have, particularly where the relevant statutory provision operates in that manner.
Voluntary Intoxication
Voluntary intoxication occurs when a person knowingly and willingly consumes alcohol, drugs, or another intoxicating substance and subsequently becomes intoxicated.
The general rule is that voluntary intoxication is not, by itself, a complete defence to criminal liability. A person who voluntarily places himself in an intoxicated condition ordinarily cannot rely upon that condition merely to avoid responsibility for an offence.
This principle is based on the idea that the accused voluntarily brought about the condition that allegedly affected his mental capacity. The law therefore does not ordinarily allow voluntary intoxication to become a general excuse for criminal behaviour.
However, the exact effect of voluntary intoxication depends upon the mental element required by the offence. Section 24 BNS is particularly relevant where an act is not an offence unless it is done with a particular knowledge or intent. In such circumstances, the law provides a specific rule concerning the mental state of an intoxicated person.
Therefore, while studying voluntary intoxication, it is important to distinguish between the fact of intoxication and its legal effect. The fact that a person was drunk or under the influence of drugs does not itself establish absence of mens rea, nor does it automatically establish criminal liability. The court must examine the statutory requirement of the offence and the circumstances in which the act was committed.
Involuntary Intoxication
Involuntary intoxication occurs when a person becomes intoxicated without voluntarily choosing to consume the intoxicating substance. This may occur where the substance is administered to the person without his knowledge or against his will.
Section 23 BNS specifically recognises this situation. Where, because of intoxication, a person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing something which is wrong or contrary to law, the act may fall within the protection of the provision, provided that the intoxicating substance was administered without his knowledge or against his will.
The important point is that mere intoxication is insufficient. The person must have been incapable, because of the intoxication, of knowing the nature of the act or that the act was wrong or contrary to law. In addition, the intoxication must have been involuntary in the sense required by the provision.
For example, if a person secretly mixes a powerful intoxicating substance into another person’s drink, and the affected person subsequently commits an act while being incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of the act, Section 23 may become relevant.
Thus, involuntary intoxication can operate as a legal defence where the statutory conditions are satisfied because the person did not voluntarily create the condition that deprived him of the relevant mental capacity.
Effect of Intoxication on Mens Rea
Mens rea means the mental element required for criminal liability. Depending upon the offence, it may take the form of intention, knowledge, or another specified mental state.
Intoxication can affect mens rea because an intoxicated person may have reduced capacity to understand circumstances, appreciate consequences, form a particular intention, or possess the required knowledge. However, the legal effect of intoxication is not uniform for every offence.
The most important question is whether the offence requires a particular knowledge or particular intent. Where the law requires such a mental element, the court must determine whether the accused possessed the legally required state of mind at the relevant time and how the statutory rules relating to intoxication apply.
The distinction between knowledge and intention is particularly important. Knowledge generally refers to awareness of the relevant facts or consequences, whereas intention involves a conscious objective or purpose to bring about a particular result. Intoxication may affect the formation or proof of intention, but the legal consequences depend upon the particular offence and the applicable statutory provision.
| Basis | Knowledge | Intention |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | Awareness that a fact or consequence exists or is likely to occur. | A conscious decision or purpose to bring about a particular result. |
| Focus | What the person knew or was aware of. | What the person wanted or aimed to achieve. |
| Mental state | Awareness or consciousness. | Purpose or objective. |
| Example | A knows that firing a gun at a person is likely to cause death. | A fires the gun with the purpose of killing the person. |
| Effect of intoxication | Intoxication may affect the question of whether the required knowledge existed, subject to the statutory rules. | Intoxication may affect the formation or proof of intention, depending on the offence and applicable law. |
Consequently, the correct approach is not to ask simply, “Was the accused intoxicated?” The more important questions are: Was the intoxication voluntary or involuntary? What was the accused’s mental condition at the time of the act? What mens rea does the offence require? And do the requirements of Section 23 or Section 24 BNS apply?
2. Section 23 BNS — Act of a Person Incapable of Judgment by Reason of Intoxication Caused Against His Will
Meaning and Scope of Section 23
Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with involuntary intoxication. It provides protection to a person who, at the time of doing an act, was incapable of understanding the nature of that act, or of knowing that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law, because of intoxication, provided that the intoxicating substance was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
However, Section 23 does not say that every intoxicated person is free from criminal liability. The protection is available only when the specific conditions contained in the section are satisfied. Therefore, the section must be understood as a limited statutory defence based on involuntary intoxication and incapacity of judgment.
The crucial point is the person’s mental condition at the time of doing the act. It is not sufficient to prove that the person had consumed an intoxicating substance or that he appeared to be drunk. It must be shown that, because of that intoxication, he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that he was doing something wrong or contrary to law.
Incapable of Knowing by Reason of Intoxication
The expression “by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing” is the central requirement of Section 23.
It means that the person’s inability to understand must have been caused by the intoxication. There must be a direct connection between the intoxicated condition and the person’s inability to understand the relevant circumstances.
Mere intoxication is therefore not enough. A person may be intoxicated but still understand what he is doing, understand the nature of his conduct, and know that the conduct is wrong or contrary to law. In such a situation, Section 23 will not automatically protect him.
For example, suppose A is secretly given an intoxicating substance without his knowledge. As a result, A becomes so intoxicated that he is completely unable to understand what he is doing. If A then performs an act that would otherwise constitute an offence, Section 23 may apply because his incapacity was caused by involuntary intoxication..
Nature of the Act
Section 23 protects a person who, because of involuntary intoxication, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act he is doing.
The nature of an act refers to the character or physical reality of the conduct being performed. A person should ordinarily understand what he is physically doing. If involuntary intoxication completely deprives him of that understanding, the requirement of Section 23 may be satisfied.
For instance, imagine that a person is unknowingly given a substance that causes extreme intoxication and mental incapacity. While in that condition, he picks up an object and uses it to injure another person, but he is incapable of understanding what he is physically doing. In such circumstances, the question of Section 23 may arise.
The important distinction is between not knowing what one is doing and merely not remembering what one did later. Section 23 concerns incapacity at the time of the act. A person cannot claim the protection merely because he subsequently has no memory of the incident.
| Point | By reason of intoxication | Nature of the act |
|---|---|---|
| Main question | Why was he unable to understand? | What was he unable to understand? |
| Focus | Cause of incapacity | Subject of incapacity |
| Requirement | Intoxication must have caused the incapacity | Person must be unable to understand what he is physically doing |
| Example | He cannot understand because he is involuntarily intoxicated | He cannot understand that he is hitting another person with an object |
Knowing That the Act Is Wrong
Section 23 also covers a situation where the person may not necessarily be incapable of understanding the physical nature of his act but, because of intoxication, is incapable of knowing that he is doing something wrong.
The word “wrong” is broader than merely “contrary to law.” It can refer to the person’s inability to appreciate that the conduct is morally or otherwise wrongful.
For example, if a person is involuntarily intoxicated to such an extent that he is completely incapable of appreciating that his conduct is wrong, the statutory protection may become relevant, provided all the other requirements of Section 23 are fulfilled.
The essential requirement is again incapacity of knowledge, rather than simply poor judgment. A person who knows that his conduct is wrong but chooses to do it despite being intoxicated cannot ordinarily claim that he was incapable of knowing that it was wrong.
Knowing That the Act Is Contrary to Law
Section 23 further refers to the person’s inability to know that he is doing something contrary to law.
This means that the person, because of involuntary intoxication, may be incapable of appreciating the legal character of his conduct. The law recognises that a person who has completely lost this capacity due to involuntary intoxication may lack the mental condition necessary for criminal responsibility in the circumstances contemplated by the section.
The phrase “wrong, or contrary to law” is therefore intended to cover the person’s inability to appreciate either the wrongful character of the conduct or its legal prohibition.
However, Section 23 should not be interpreted to mean that ignorance of law generally excuses a criminal act. Ignorance of law by itself is not a defence. The special protection under Section 23 arises because the person’s incapacity to know that the act was wrong or contrary to law was caused by involuntary intoxication.
| Basis | Act is Wrong | Act is Contrary to Law |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | Unable to appreciate that the conduct is wrongful. | Unable to appreciate that the conduct is prohibited by law. |
| Focus | Wrongfulness of the conduct. | Legal prohibition of the conduct. |
| Simple question | “Is what I am doing wrong?” | “Is what I am doing against the law?” |
| Example | Unable to understand that hurting another person is wrong. | Unable to understand that hurting another person is prohibited by law. |
Substance Administered Without Knowledge
One of the most important requirements of Section 23 is that the intoxicating substance must have been administered to the person without his knowledge.
This means that the person did not know that the substance capable of causing intoxication was being administered to him.
For example, suppose A drinks a beverage believing it to be an ordinary non-intoxicating drink, but another person secretly mixes an intoxicating substance into it. A does not know that the substance has been added. If the resulting intoxication makes A incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that his act is wrong or contrary to law, Section 23 may provide protection.
The purpose of this requirement is to distinguish involuntary intoxication from a condition that the person knowingly and voluntarily created.
The fact that the substance was consumed without knowledge, however, is not by itself sufficient. The accused must also satisfy the requirement of incapacity caused by that intoxication.
Substance Administered Against His Will
Section 23 also applies where the intoxicating substance was administered against the person’s will.
This situation is different from administration without knowledge. A person may know that someone is administering a substance but nevertheless have no voluntary choice in taking it.
For example, if a person is forcibly made to consume an intoxicating substance and, as a consequence, becomes incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of his conduct, the condition of Section 23 may be satisfied.
The expression “against his will” therefore emphasises the absence of voluntary consent to the administration of the intoxicating substance.
The distinction can be understood simply: where the substance is administered without knowledge, the person does not know what is being administered; where it is administered against his will, the person does not voluntarily agree to its administration.
| Basis | Without Knowledge | Against His Will |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning | The person does not know that the intoxicating substance is being administered. | The person knows about the administration but does not consent to it. |
| Focus | Lack of awareness. | Lack of voluntary consent. |
| Example | An intoxicating substance is secretly mixed into A’s drink. | A is forcibly made to consume an intoxicating substance. |
| Key idea | “I did not know I was being intoxicated.” | “I knew, but I did not voluntarily agree.” |
Legal Effect of Section 23
When Can Intoxication Become a Complete Defence?
Section 23 can operate as a complete statutory defence when all of its requirements are established.
The accused must show that, at the time of the act, he was intoxicated to such an extent that he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing something wrong or contrary to law. In addition, the intoxicating substance must have been administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
When these requirements are satisfied, the law provides that “nothing is an offence” in the circumstances covered by the provision. In other words, the accused may be completely protected from criminal liability for the act falling within the scope of Section 23.
It is therefore stronger than merely reducing punishment. Where the statutory defence applies, the act is treated as not constituting an offence for the purposes of the provision.
Why Voluntary Intoxication Is Generally Not Protected
Voluntary intoxication is generally not protected because the person himself voluntarily consumed the intoxicating substance and brought about the condition of intoxication.
Criminal law generally does not permit a person to deliberately or knowingly create a condition that impairs his judgment and then use that condition as a general excuse for criminal conduct.
Section 23 specifically requires that the substance must have been administered without the person’s knowledge or against his will. This requirement effectively excludes ordinary cases of voluntary intoxication from the protection of Section 23.
For example, if A knowingly drinks alcohol, becomes heavily intoxicated, and then commits an offence, A cannot simply say that he was drunk and therefore did not understand what he was doing. The fact of voluntary intoxication alone does not bring the case within Section 23.
The legal principle is therefore clear: the law gives special protection to involuntary intoxication, not ordinary voluntary intoxication.
What Must the Accused Establish?
For Section 23 to assist the accused, the relevant facts must establish that the intoxicating substance was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will and that, as a result of that intoxication, he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that the act was wrong or contrary to law.
The accused therefore cannot succeed merely by proving that he was drunk or intoxicated. He must establish the legally relevant degree of incapacity and the involuntary nature of the intoxication.
The court will consequently examine the circumstances surrounding the administration of the intoxicating substance, the accused’s condition at the time of the act, the nature of his conduct, and the evidence showing whether he was actually incapable of knowing the relevant matters.
The central question under Section 23 is therefore:
Was the accused, because of involuntary intoxication, incapable at the time of the act of knowing its nature or that he was doing something wrong or contrary to law?
If the answer is yes and the other statutory requirements are satisfied, Section 23 may provide a complete defence. If the person voluntarily became intoxicated, or if he remained capable of understanding the nature and wrongfulness of his conduct, Section 23 will generally not protect him.
3. Section 24 BNS — Act Done by a Person in a State of Intoxication
Introduction
Section 24 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with the effect of intoxication on the particular knowledge or intent required for an offence.
The main purpose of Section 24 is to prevent a person from using voluntary intoxication as a means of avoiding criminal responsibility where an offence requires a particular knowledge or intent.
Bare Act language — Section 24:
“In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.”
The central rule is that a person who voluntarily becomes intoxicated is generally treated, for the purpose of the required knowledge, as if he had the same knowledge that he would have possessed while sober.
Meaning and Scope of Section 24
Section 24 applies where the act in question does not constitute an offence unless it is accompanied by a particular knowledge or intent.
The provision therefore operates at the level of mens rea. Instead of allowing voluntary intoxication to automatically remove the required mental element, the law creates a statutory presumption or rule concerning the accused’s knowledge.
The important words are “particular knowledge or intent.” This means that the offence must require a specific mental state as one of its ingredients. Section 24 then determines how the accused’s intoxicated condition is to be treated while deciding that mental state.
The provision does not simply say that every intoxicated person is guilty. Rather, it tells the court how to deal with the question of knowledge when the accused committed the act while intoxicated.
“In Cases Where an Act Done Is Not an Offence Unless Done with a Particular Knowledge or Intent”
This is the starting point of Section 24.
The provision applies only where the law requires the accused to possess a particular knowledge or intent before the act can amount to an offence.
For example, if a particular offence requires the accused to know a certain fact or circumstance, the court must ordinarily determine whether that knowledge existed when the act was committed.
Section 24 becomes relevant when the accused was intoxicated at that time. The provision then lays down a special statutory rule for determining his knowledge.
Thus, the first question under Section 24 is:
Does the offence require a particular knowledge or intent?
If the answer is no, Section 24 may have no direct application. If the answer is yes, the court must then consider the accused’s intoxicated condition and the statutory rule provided by Section 24.
“A Person Who Does the Act in a State of Intoxication”
The next requirement is that the accused must have done the act while in a state of intoxication.
The relevant time is the time when the act was committed. The provision is concerned with the mental state of the accused while performing the particular act.
However, intoxication by itself does not determine criminal liability. The important issue is whether the intoxication was voluntary or whether the substance was administered without the person’s knowledge or against his will.
This distinction is particularly important because Section 24 contains an exception for involuntary intoxication.
Voluntary Intoxication and the Statutory Rule
Where a person voluntarily consumes an intoxicating substance and then commits an act requiring particular knowledge, Section 24 generally does not allow him to escape liability merely by saying that intoxication affected his knowledge.
The statutory rule is that he is to be “dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.”
This means that voluntary intoxication does not ordinarily reduce the knowledge that the law attributes to the accused.
For example, suppose A voluntarily becomes intoxicated and, while intoxicated, performs an act which is an offence only when done with particular knowledge. A cannot simply argue that because he was drunk, he did not possess the required knowledge. Section 24 requires the court to treat him as having the same knowledge that he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
This is the key statutory principle of Section 24.
“As If He Had the Same Knowledge as He Would Have Had If He Had Not Been Intoxicated”
This is the most important part of Section 24.
The provision creates a legal rule for determining knowledge. When the accused voluntarily intoxicates himself, the law does not permit him to rely upon the resulting impairment of knowledge.
The court considers the accused’s knowledge as though he were not intoxicated.
In simple terms:
Voluntary intoxication does not allow the accused to reduce the knowledge legally attributed to him.
Therefore, if a sober person in the accused’s circumstances would have knowledge of a particular fact, the intoxicated accused is generally dealt with as possessing that knowledge.
This rule is particularly significant for offences where knowledge, rather than merely the physical performance of the act, is an essential ingredient.
Particular Knowledge and Particular Intent
Section 24 uses the words “particular knowledge or intent.” These two concepts should be understood separately.
Knowledge means awareness or understanding of a relevant fact or circumstance. A person may know that a particular consequence is likely to result from his conduct or may know the circumstances in which he is acting.
Intent, on the other hand, generally refers to the conscious purpose or objective behind the conduct.
Section 24 expressly refers to both knowledge and intent in identifying the type of offence to which the provision applies. However, the operative statutory rule specifically states that the intoxicated person is to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
Therefore, while studying Section 24, special attention should be given to the distinction between knowledge and intention and to the exact mental element required by the particular offence.
Voluntarily Induced Intoxication
The practical importance of Section 24 lies mainly in cases of voluntary intoxication.
When a person knowingly consumes an intoxicating substance and subsequently commits an act requiring particular knowledge, he cannot ordinarily rely upon his self-induced intoxication to argue that he lacked the required knowledge.
The law essentially places the responsibility of the intoxicated condition upon the person who voluntarily created it.
For example, if A knowingly consumes alcohol, becomes intoxicated, and then commits an act which requires particular knowledge, A cannot ordinarily claim that his intoxication removed the knowledge required by the offence. Section 24 directs that he should be dealt with as though he possessed the knowledge he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
Exception: Intoxication Administered Without Knowledge or Against Will
Section 24 contains an important exception.
The statutory rule concerning the accused’s knowledge does not operate in the same manner where “the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.”
This brings involuntary intoxication within a different legal position.
If another person secretly administers an intoxicating substance to the accused, the accused may not have voluntarily created the intoxicated condition. Similarly, if the substance is forced upon him against his will, the condition is involuntary.
Therefore, the protection associated with involuntary intoxication must be considered in light of the statutory exception.
This is also the major conceptual distinction between Sections 23 and 24: Section 23 specifically deals with incapacity caused by involuntary intoxication, while Section 24 establishes the rule for particular knowledge or intent in cases involving intoxication, subject to the exception for intoxication administered without knowledge or against will.
Essential Ingredients of Section 24
The Offence Must Require Particular Knowledge or Intent
Section 24 begins with the requirement that the act must not constitute an offence unless it is done with a particular knowledge or intent. Therefore, the provision is relevant only where the mental element is an essential ingredient of the offence.
The Accused Must Have Been in a State of Intoxication
The accused must have committed the relevant act while in a state of intoxication. The intoxication must therefore be connected with the time at which the act was performed.
The Act Must Have Been Committed During That Intoxicated State
The statutory rule concerns the knowledge of a person who “does the act in a state of intoxication.” Therefore, the intoxicated condition must exist when the relevant act is done.
The Statutory Rule Determines the Relevant Knowledge
Where the provision applies, the accused is dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
This is the central legal effect of Section 24.
Exception for Involuntary Intoxication
The statutory rule is subject to the exception where the intoxicating substance was administered to the accused without his knowledge or against his will.
Legal Effect of Section 24
The principal legal effect of Section 24 is that voluntary intoxication does not ordinarily allow an accused to escape the knowledge required for an offence.
The law essentially prevents the accused from saying:
“I was intoxicated, therefore I did not have the knowledge required by the offence.”
Instead, where the section applies, the accused is dealt with as if he possessed the same knowledge that he would have possessed if he had not been intoxicated.
This is why Section 24 is particularly important in relation to mens rea and criminal liability.
Section 24 and Mens Rea
Section 24 does not abolish the requirement of mens rea. Rather, it establishes a statutory method for determining the relevant knowledge where intoxication is involved.
Ordinarily, criminal law may require the prosecution to establish a particular mental element. Section 24 modifies the ordinary inquiry into knowledge when the accused was intoxicated.
Thus, the court does not simply accept the accused’s claim that intoxication prevented him from knowing the relevant facts. Where the intoxication was voluntary, the law requires him to be dealt with on the basis of the knowledge he would have possessed if he had not been intoxicated.
The provision therefore prevents voluntary intoxication from becoming an easy means of defeating criminal responsibility.
Simple Illustration
Suppose A voluntarily drinks alcohol and becomes heavily intoxicated. While intoxicated, A performs an act which is punishable only when accompanied by particular knowledge.
A later argues that he did not possess that knowledge because he was drunk.
Section 24 prevents A from relying upon his voluntary intoxication in this manner. The law requires A to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge that he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
Now suppose the intoxicating substance was secretly administered to A without his knowledge. The exception contained in Section 24 becomes relevant because A did not voluntarily create the intoxicated condition.
4.Important Case laws
Supreme Court Guidelines — Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488
In Basdev v. State of Pepsu, the Supreme Court explained the legal effect of intoxication on criminal liability and laid down important principles regarding drunkenness and mens rea.
(a) Incapacity to understand the nature and consequences of the act
Where a person, because of drunkenness or any other reason, is incapable of understanding the nature of his act and its consequences, such incapacity may constitute a defence to the offence charged.
(b) Evidence showing incapacity to form specific intent
If there is evidence of intoxication which indicates that the accused was incapable of forming the specific intention required for the commission of the offence, such evidence must be taken into consideration by the court.
(c) Mere drunkenness is not sufficient
However, evidence merely showing that the accused was drunk, without proving that the intoxication actually rendered him incapable of forming the intention necessary for the offence, will not be sufficient to rebut the ordinary presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts.
Defence of Drunkenness — Rex vs. Meade (1909)
In Rex vs. Meade, (1909) 1 K.B. 895, the accused violently assaulted his wife and caused her death by striking her with his fist. The accused relied upon drunkenness as a defence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal held that, in such circumstances, the jury should be directed to return a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder if they were satisfied that the accused was so severely intoxicated that he was incapable of knowing that his conduct was dangerous.
The case therefore illustrates that extreme drunkenness may become relevant where it prevents the accused from forming the mental state necessary for the more serious offence. The mere fact that the accused was drunk, however, is not sufficient; the intoxication must have resulted in the required degree of incapacity.
5. Comparison Between Section 23 and Section 24 BNS — Intoxication
The key distinction is that Section 23 focuses on incapacity caused by involuntary intoxication, whereas Section 24 lays down a rule regarding knowledge where an offence requires particular knowledge or intent.
| Basis | Section 23 BNS | Section 24 BNS |
|---|---|---|
| Subject matter | Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will | Act involving particular knowledge or intent committed in a state of intoxication |
| Basic purpose | Protects a person whose capacity to understand the nature or wrongfulness of his act is destroyed by involuntary intoxication | Determines how the accused’s knowledge is to be treated when intoxication is involved |
| Nature of intoxication | Primarily concerned with involuntary intoxication | Generally operates where the person is voluntarily intoxicated, subject to the statutory exception |
| Bare Act requirement | Person must be “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” | Person does the act “in a state of intoxication” and is dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated |
| Type of incapacity | Actual incapacity to know the nature, wrongfulness, or illegality of the act | The section does not primarily require proof of complete incapacity; it provides a statutory rule for determining knowledge |
| Requirement regarding offence | The provision focuses on the person’s inability to know the relevant nature or character of the act | Applies where the act is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent |
| Mental element | Focuses on the person’s capacity to know | Focuses particularly on the knowledge legally attributed to the accused |
| Time of assessment | At the time of doing the act | When the accused does the act in a state of intoxication |
| Causation | Intoxication must be the reason for the person’s incapacity | The statutory rule applies to the person’s knowledge while intoxicated |
| Source of intoxication | Substance must have been administered without his knowledge or against his will | Same exception: the rule does not apply where the intoxicating substance was administered without his knowledge or against his will |
| Voluntary intoxication | Does not ordinarily come within the protection because the provision requires administration without knowledge or against will | Voluntary intoxication generally does not enable the accused to avoid the knowledge attributed to him under the section |
| Involuntary intoxication | This is the central situation contemplated by the provision | The involuntary administration of the substance constitutes the statutory exception |
| Effect on criminal liability | Can provide a complete defence when all statutory requirements are satisfied | Prevents voluntary intoxication from being used to reduce the knowledge legally attributed to the accused |
| Effect of “nothing is an offence” | The section expressly states that “nothing is an offence” in the circumstances covered by it | Does not use this formulation; instead, it establishes how the person is to be dealt with regarding knowledge |
| Degree of incapacity | Requires incapacity to know the relevant matter | Does not require the same form of incapacity as Section 23 |
| Question for the court | Was the accused, because of involuntary intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law? | What knowledge should legally be attributed to the accused when he committed an act requiring particular knowledge or intent while intoxicated? |
| Example | A is secretly given an intoxicating substance and becomes incapable of understanding what he is doing. | A voluntarily becomes intoxicated and commits an act for which particular knowledge is required; he is dealt with as if he had the knowledge he would have possessed while sober. |
| Core principle | Involuntary intoxication + incapacity = statutory defence | Intoxication + particular knowledge requirement = knowledge generally assessed as if sober |
Section 23 asks:
“Was the person incapable of knowing because he was involuntarily intoxicated?”
Section 24 asks:
“How should the person’s knowledge be treated when he commits an act requiring particular knowledge or intent while intoxicated?”
FAQs on Section 23 and Section 24 of BNS
1. What is the main purpose of Section 23 of the BNS?
Section 23 provides a defence to a person who, due to intoxication, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that the act is wrong or contrary to law, provided that the intoxicating substance was administered to them without their knowledge or against their will.
2. Does voluntary intoxication provide a defence under Section 23?
Generally, no. Section 23 applies only when the intoxicating substance was administered without the person’s knowledge or against their will. A person who voluntarily consumes an intoxicating substance cannot ordinarily claim the protection of Section 23 merely because they became intoxicated.
3. What does Section 24 deal with?
Section 24 deals with cases where an act is not an offence unless it is done with a particular knowledge or intent. It explains how voluntary intoxication affects the determination of such knowledge or intent.
4. What is the difference between Section 23 and Section 24?
Section 23 deals with involuntary intoxication where the person is incapable of knowing the nature or wrongfulness of the act. Section 24 primarily deals with voluntary intoxication and the question of specific knowledge or intent required for an offence.
5. Can a person use intoxication as a defence for every offence?
No. Intoxication is not a general defence to criminal liability. Its effect depends on the circumstances of intoxication and the mental element required for the particular offence. Section 23 applies in the limited circumstances of involuntary intoxication, while Section 24 governs cases involving the required knowledge or intent.
