Voluntary Intoxication - As An Exception Under IPC · Intoxication is a state wherein the person becomes incapable of their actions because of the ingestion of undue amount of drugs

Voluntary Intoxication - As An Exception Under IPC 1D. Sahana and

2M. Kannappan

1Saveetha School of Law,

Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences,

Saveetha University,

Chennai.

[email protected] 2Saveetha School of Law,

Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences,

Saveetha University,

Chennai.

[email protected]

Abstract This paper aims at examining whether a person can be discharged from

criminal liability under Indian Penal Code who is intoxicated voluntarily. It

has been a controversy for years on this issue. If law can set free an

involuntarily intoxicated person from criminal liability under the code of

IPC, stating that mens rea was absent, how can it only punish a voluntarily

intoxicated person, because in this case also, he loses control and has no

knowledge of what he is doing. This was based on the maxim that, actus

non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’, which means that the act does not makes

one guilty unless he has a guilty intention. This is considered a serious

issue because, in law, no innocent person should be wrongly punished. But

this paper clearly elaborates that the situations needed to be considered

and identified before concluding the case. The legal provisions relating to

intoxication and the test used to determine liability on this issue is also well

discussed. The famous ‘Dutch Courage Rule’ is discussed in the paper,

which gives a different connotation to this matter. The different defences

under different laws are also elucidated briefly. This paper compares that,

what are all the exemptions provided under both Indian and English law.

Various Indian and as well as English landmark judgments are discussed to

the better understanding of the concept. The paper finally concludes

whether the law absolves a person from criminal liability completely for

any act done against law or omitted.

Key Words: Criminal liability, indian penal code, voluntary intoxication,

mens rea absent, dutch courage rule, english and indian law, defences.

International Journal of Pure and Applied MathematicsVolume 119 No. 17 2018, 1277-1288ISSN: 1314-3395 (on-line version)url: http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/Special Issue http://www.acadpubl.eu/hub/

1277

1. Introduction

There are three kinds of abnormal person, that is to say, minors, person of

unsound mind and intoxicated person. These persons do not possess the rational

state of mind to understand the nature of the act they are doing, the way the way

adopt to accomplish it and the legal consequences of the act. There are rising

need for the recognition of provisions for the exemption from punishment under

the state of intoxication from the inclusion of mental element in the definition of

most of the offences. Intoxication is a position in which a person acts

abnormally compared to a prudent or cautious person due to the reason of

inhibition of alcohol or drugs, either voluntarily or involuntarily. Chapter IV of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 that talks about General Exceptions, absolves the

criminal liability of a person who in the state of inability to form rational

thinking committed an act that constitutes crime. It is a defence that is available

to the criminal defendants on the ground that, as a result of intoxication, the

defendant loses his or her capacity to understand the nature of the act they are

doing. It is the situation where, the person loses self control and the ability to

judge. Section 85 explicitly deals with the offences committed by the person

who has been intoxication without his or her knowledge. The other one, Section

86 of the code deals with the offences committed, where intoxication is self

induced. Given following are the three conditions, the person must be able to

fulfil in order to escape from liability under the section 85(4) of Indian Penal

Code on grounds of involuntary intoxication.

i. The person should be incapable of knowing the nature of the act.

ii. The person should be incapable of acting and thinking in a responsible

manner and in all possibility he is not aware that his act is prohibited by

the law.

iii. The source of intoxication must have been given forcefully or someone

should have induced the person to consume it.

All England Report in its Annual Review 1989 observed: “Alcoholism may

constitute a disease provided it has damaged the brain to an extent as to grossly

impair the ability to make rational judgments and emotional responses. A killing

attributable to alcoholism is one thing but a killing attributable to the taking of

alcohol is quite another and a line must be drawn between the two though it

may be a fine one in some cases. The taking of alcohol inevitably impairs

judgment and the ability to control the emotion because of the effect it has on

the brain but the transient effects of alcohol cannot be accounted a disease”.

Intoxication is no excuse. However, delirium tremens, an affection of the brain

caused by drunkenness, as it produces a state of insanity, incapacity to

understand the nature of act, whether it is right or wrong. The disease is realised

as an insanity protanto, the person is treated the same manner as that the case of

involuntary intoxication. Therefore, in some exceptional cases the act of an

intoxicated person is excused from criminal liability.

International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Special Issue

1278

Objectives i. To decide whether voluntary intoxication per se reckless all the time.

ii. To analyse the situation where exemption is provided.

iii. To determine whether person has defence is he intoxicates himself with

the intention to commit crime in state of sanity.

Hypothesis

Null Hypothesis – Intoxication is not a strong defence.

Alternative Hypothesis – Intoxication is a valid defence.

2. Review of Literature

The meaning and essential conditions that constitute exemption under

voluntary intoxication, various landmark judgments decided under this issue

and discussed about the voluntary intoxication that constitutes to intention to

cause crime (Pillai,P.S.A., 2017). The information about the scope of

application of general exceptions during investigations, application of mens rea

to legal entities, the landmark judgments regarding the issue under Sections 85

and 86 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 including the recent legislative

amendments due to changed in criminality and the exemption as Criminal

liability (Ratanlal, Dhirajlal, 2017). The law on intoxicated offending according

to which incapacity resulting from intoxication by alcohol or drugs can form the

basis for imputed Criminal liability and suggests that in law on intoxicated

offending, intoxication it's simultaneously construed as exculpatory abnormality

and morally culpable conduct. (Loughnan, Arlie., 2016). The origin of the

concept, meaning the legal stand on the issue has it has been, explains

intoxication codified in Section 85 and Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code, the

ways in which a person can be intoxicated along with landmark judgments

relating to it and onus of proof and types of intoxication (Madhuri, B., 2015).

The information about the common law and exculpatory doctrine, concept of

voluntary intoxication briefly described, specific intent as technique of

motivation and the findings of scientific research on alcoholism. (Hall, Jorome.,

1993). The history of intoxication defence, the partial responsibility doctrine,

the anomalous defence of voluntary intoxication, the rationale of the full

responsibility rule and that legislative amendments. (Keiter, Mitchell., 2016).

The information about the audience of judicial confusion surrounding the

defence of intoxication after the judgement in Basudev vs. State of Pepsu,

assumption of intent in relation to offences which require such a mental element

in case of voluntary intoxication may not be a rationale choice. (Dadiya, Jinal.,

2016). The information about the need for recognition of an exception from the

criminal liability on the ground of intoxication arises logically from the

inclusion of a mental element in these definition of most offences and from the

fact that drunkenness and in some circumstances it may because the mental

required for the imposition of criminal liability. (Widhanapathirana, Shiran. H.,

2015). Intoxication and its types. The voluntary and involuntary intoxication are


1279

elaborated with the crimes of specific intent and the approach taken in crimes of

specific intent and basic intent. This provides information about intoxication in

conjunction with other defences and judgments for all sections. (Thakur,

Pushkar., 2014). The information regarding the reason for being intoxication

treated as an exception and why voluntary intoxication is not treated as an

exception. Says that act is not an offence unless it is done with an intention or

particular knowledge. (Sadanandan, Renjith., 2013). Section 85 elucidated the

condition that amounts to crime caused due to the act of the intoxicated person.

So far as the attributing knowledge is concerned, the intoxicated man is treated

as I'd he was sober. So far as intention is concerned, or is gathered from the

general circumstances of the case and the degree of intoxication.( D., Divya,

Kumawat, Pankaj, 2016). Intoxication is a state wherein the person becomes

incapable of their actions because of the ingestion of undue amount of drugs or

alcohol. Intoxication is not itself a defense to a criminal charge if, the legal

requirement of guilt should be present. (P, Pricilla, Hepitha., N, Janani., 2016).

Throughout the recorded history, alcoholic beverages have been used in many

societies for many purposes - as psychoactive substances, intoxicants, liquids to

quench thirst, sources of calories, etc. Whatever the social and personal

valuation of the alcoholic beverage use, positive or negative or mixed; drinking

alcoholic beverages carries with it some potential for social and health harm,

both to the drinker and to others. (Dasari, Harish., Chavali, K.H., Bansal, S,

Yogender, 2015). The insanity defence has a long history, and is evolved after

many tests that have been tried and tested. McNaughton‟s rules stressed on

understandability of right and wrong and intellectual rather than a moral or

effective definition dominated in its formulation. Lack of control and irresistible

drives or impulses were neglected. Going by the current understanding of

neurological evidences of compulsion and lack of impulse control, rationality

tests without the inclusion of lack of control. (Ashokan, T. V. ,2016).

Intoxication is basically a state wherein the person becomes incapable of normal

speech, thought or actions because of the ingestion of undue amount of drugs

and/or alcohol. IPC interestingly has a provision that provides intoxication as a

defence for the crime committed, though not completely (Gupta, Apeksha.,

2013). Voluntary Intoxication can be used as a basis for the insanity defence in

certain caes. The obscure concept of settled insanity is tested and evolution

from a permanent state of mind usually associated with chronic alcoholism to a

current test of temporary insanity wherein the mental disorder must be fixed and

stable (Meloy, Reid, J., 1992). The law related to Voluntary intoxication and

criminal responsibility in the 50 other states. Statutory and case law citations are

provided which govern the use of intoxication evidence in each jurisdiction to

negate mens rea, to support an insanity defence and to mitigate criminal

sentencing. (Marlowe, B, Douglas., 1999). The enfranchisement of all convicted

prisoners is not considered as an option. In recent times however, certain

international human rights bodies, such as the UN nations Human rights

committee questioned the legitimacy of the disenfranchisement of prisoners

(William, Rebecca., 2007). Alcoholic beverages have existed from time


1280

immemorial, as has the tendency of persons to over-indulge in them. Criminal

behaviour has also existed from time immemorial. Centuries of experience

show that this ancient aspect of human behaviour often intersect a great deal of

crime committed by intoxicated persons (McCord, David., 2007). Involuntary

intoxication is often misunderstood. The predominant „orthodox‟ view is that

involuntary intoxication should lead to acquittal for offences requiring proof of

fault. Strict liability offences are therefore unaffected. (Brooks, Thom., 2015).

Materials and Methods

This is a doctrinal research. The sources used for the study are secondary

sources which includes books, journals, articles, magazines and websites that

talks about the provisions, case laws and elaborates and discusses about

Intoxication as a defence under IPC.

3. Intoxication and Intention

Intoxication voluntarily with intention to commit crime clearly depicts the

criminal intention which is punishable under IPC. A Motive is something that

makes a man to form an intention to do any act. Knowledge is something that

makes the man aware of the act. There are cases where both intention and

knowledge merge into each other and more or less they mean the same thing

and intention can be presumed from knowledge. The line that separates the both

is thin and at the same time they does not depict different idea. There are cases

where men intoxicates in order to create defence to escape from the criminal

liability. The famous landmark case related to voluntary intoxication is Basudev

vs. State of Pepsu1, where some villagers went to attend a marriage party. All of

them went to attend the mid day meal to the bride‟s house. While eating, a

military officer who was highly drunk, asked a young boy to step aside, so that

he can occupy a convenient seat. But when the boy refused to move, the M. O.

took out his pistol and shot the young boy. The injury proved fatal. The

evidence showed that the accused sometimes staggered and sometimes was

incoherent in his talk. But it was shown that he was capable of moving himself

independently and was capable of talking coherently. The evidences are clear to

prove that, the M.O came on his own to the bride‟s house and made the choice

of his own seat after injuring the deceased. The supreme court from the given

facts explicitly elucidates that there was no proved incapacity on the accused to

form the intention to cause bodily harm sufficient in the ordinary course of the

nature to cause death. Due to his incapacity to prove his innocence, the law

presumed that he intended the natural and probable consequences of his act. In

other words he intended to inflict bodily injuries on the victim. The accused was

found guilty.

Intoxication as a Denial Under Mens REA

This concept of using intoxication as a defence under criminal law, is not a

11956 AIR 488


1281

defence either by exculpation or by excuse2 . More likely, it is an aggravating

factor that increases the degree of social disapproval reflected in the sentence

imposed by the court. Lord Denning stated two examples in the case of

Attorney General Northern Ireland vs. Gallagher3.

i. During a christening ceremony, a nurse was drunk. She by mistake due

to drunkenness put the baby in the fire thinking it was a log of wood.

ii. An intoxicated person mistook his friend to be a theatrical dummy and

stabbed him which led to the death of that friend.

According to Lord Denning, in both the above cases, the murderers can seek

defence. A mistake due to drunkenness is conceivable. The rule governing the

factors amounting to state of intoxication was laid down in the case of Director

of Public Prosecutor vs. Beard4 . Where Lord Brickenhead stated that, where a

specific intent is a specific element in the offence, evidence of a state of

drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should

be taken into consideration in order to determine whether he had in fact formed

the necessary intent to constitute the particular crime. Where a specific intent is

necessary, that a man can be able to prove that he was highly intoxicated, that

he was unable to form the intent. In that case he cannot be convicted. In another

case, R vs. Kingston5 , the respondent was in conflict with a couple named

Foreman over business matters. The Foreman employed Penn to obtain

damaging information which they could use against the respondent, who was

homosexual with Pedophiliac tendencies. As a part of the plan Penn invited

youth to his room. According to the evidence of the youth, he remember

nothing from the time between he is sitting in Penn‟s room and the next

morning. It was the case for the prosecution, which the jury by their second

verdict must have accepted, that the boy fell asleep due to administration of

drug. The respondent committed gross sexual acts with the boy and Penn took

photographs as it had been planned. Later, the accused was charged guilty

because he was not intoxicated enough not to have formed the required intent,

even though the intoxication is of an involuntary nature. Another important

case, Director of Public Prosecutor vs. Majewski6 , Majewski appealed against

his conviction for his attempt to assault to cause bodily injury under the

influence of drugs and threatened a constable who was on duty. Where the court

held that in case of assault no specific intent is required and accused is charged

as guilty.

Foresee Ability Test

Foresee ability test is used to determine the criminal liability. Every normal

person has the knowledge that consumption of alcohol or ingestion of drugs

cause loss of control of mind and body, both. Hence, any person knowingly

2http://www.legalserviceindia.com/intoxication-defence/

3(1963) AC 349

4(1920) AC 479

5 (1994) 3 WLR 519

6(1977) AC 443


1282

intoxicates himself with such substances, is committing rash and negligent act

averse to the possibility of losing control. By this, one attracts the charge of

deliberate intent by consuming substances known to lead to such

consequences.7 Moreover, loss of control may not be instant and without

symptoms. However, combined with the problem of involuntary intoxication,

the position becomes quite contentious. Even states with a strict liability offence

excluding drunkenness as a defence usually need prosecution of the one that

laced the drinks without the prudent of the one who consumed it. This general

rule could however, open a Pandora‟s box with appropriate justification

obtainable even to such criminals who have at most slightly ran over the

specified alcohol limit for drivers. Therefore, in most of the legal systems,

involuntary loss of control is restricted to cases wherever there is no actual loss

of control and in any case exists with recognisable symptoms. For example,

many states have specified a low limit for the blood alcohol level attracting the

commission of an offence of driving under the influence of alcohol so that

people may be liable for exceeding the prescribed limit even without the

noticeable indicative signs. Generally, this defence is not provided to people

who experience symptom of intoxication, who continue to drink laced drinks

even after they became aware of the consequences. The basis for law in this

area rests on the principle of the good of the general public as against the rights

of an individual who recklessly exposes the public to danger8.

Intoxication Induced with the Intention of Committing Crime

A person does not have defence if he voluntarily intoxicates himself with the

intention to commit crime in the state of insanity. This issue was elaborated in

the case of Attorney General Northern Ireland vs. Gallagher9 , where the

husband, who wanted to kill the wife was first fully drunk by whisky

voluntarily and stabbed the wife with knife. The wife was dead. During the trial

the accused (husband) contended that insanity due to intoxication made him

incapable of forming necessary intent at the time of the act. The court rejected

the contention and held that the accused have committed the same act even if he

has not drunk, he is simply creating a defence under intoxication to escape the

criminal liability.

Intoxication and Defences

As discussed several times, voluntary intoxication is not a defence to general

intent crime. It can only be considered as a defence for a crime of specific

intent. However it does not completely absolves the criminal liability though

reduces the culpability. In the case of R vs. Lipman10

, the facts are as given

here, both the defendant as well as victim are drug addicts. One evening both

took a quantity of drug known as LSD. After two days, in early morning, the

defendant, who is resident of USA, checked out his hotel and left the country.

7http://www.academia.edu/voluntary-intoxication-as-a-defence/html

8 http://www.justia.com/html

9 (1963) AC 349

10 (1970) 1 QB 152


1283

On next day, the victim was found dead in her room by the landlord. She had

been struck on the head severely and cause of death had been suffocation due to

a sheet that had been crammed in her mouth. When the defendant was charged

for his criminal act, he contended that “the drugs hallucinated him as he is in the

centre of the earth fighting snakes and in that state of mind he had killed the

victim. The court held that, since for a charge of manslaughter no specific intent

is required, hence in this case self induced intoxication will not serve as a

defence. Acquittal is not possible and charge of manslaughter is inevitable. The

defences under statutory laws and common laws are discussed below.

Statutory Law Defences

The Majewski rule is not applicable in cases where the statute expressly

mentions that a particular belief should be defence to a charge. This can be

elaborated by a famous English law case Jaggard Vs. Dickinson11

. In the case

the court held that, for the purpose of statutory defence of lawful excuse, a

drunken belief will find the defence even though this allows drunkenness to

negate basic intent. The authority is limited and the generality of the defence is

not affected. In case under the influence of the drug accused destroys a thing of

another person by mistake considering it as his own, this belief cannot claim

defence, as this act is an act of recklessness. Where in case he destroys a thing

of third person with consent of that person, he is entitled to defence.

Common Law Defences

This is straight to opposite to defences given under statutory defence. A person

(accused) when sets up ay self defence, he is to be judged on the contentions

made by him or facts he believes, whether it is reasonable or not12

. Any

mistake that arises from voluntary intoxication cannot be relied on as a basis for

defence even on charge of murder or other crime requiring specific intent. In the

case of R vs. Moore13

, the court held that the incapacity to form the intent

under intoxication is treated as an offence in criminal law. However, there has

emerged an opinion in common law, which does not treat if as such, causing an

amount of confusion as regards the same. It is assumed that if self defence is a

defence to murder, then it must also be a defence to manslaughter, but it is not

necessarily so. Due to the reason that, an act done in self defence arising from a

gross negligent mistake should be a manslaughter by gross negligence.

Defence under English Law

Over a series of cases the English law has developed and came a long way from

the rigid law that it was earlier. Earlier in the nineteenth century, voluntary

intoxication was never a defence. But there are lots of changes over this issue14

.

Voluntary intoxication, the case where defendant consumes alcohol wilfully and

commits acts constituting prohibited conduct of an offence, is a considerable

11

(1981) 1 QB 527 12

http://www.scribd.com/defence-under-intoxication/html 13

(1988) 1 SCR 1097 14

http://www.quora.com/


1284

problem under English Criminal Law. There is a correspondence between

incidences of drink and crimes of violence, such as assaults and stabbings. In

dealing with this issue and balancing theoretical problems with public policy

issues, the English law has categorised offences into two categories, those of

basic intent and those of specific intent. In the latter, the defendant's

intoxication will be directly relevant as to whether he or she formed the

necessary intent. In the former, the picture is more complicated and unclear,

although it is known that intoxication will not provide a defence where

recklessness can be shown on the accepted facts. Crimes of specific intent

include murder, and those of basic intent most crimes of recklessness, including

manslaughter15

. It is believed over years that consumption of alcohol makes a

person violent, therefore any violent act committed while intoxicated is done

out of control. But in English Law, neither voluntary nor involuntary

intoxication provides defence. No behaviour is excusable merely because it was

done under the influence of intoxication. The phrase – „Drunken intent is still an

intent‟ is not abandoned. Where an individual voluntarily intoxicates himself, it

is not a defence for him to claim that he does not have intention to commit any

act that he did while he was intoxicated. Lord Brickenhead stated that, until

nineteenth century voluntary intoxication was never a defence, based on the

principle that „a man who by his own voluntary act debauches and destroys his

will power shall be no better situated in regard to criminal acts than a sober

man‟16

. Later considering the statement of Lord Brickenhead, Lord Elwyn-

Jones indicated that, a crime was one of specific intent if mens rea went further

than actus reus -viz- the crime is one of ulterior intent.

Distinction between Indian and English Law

Indian Law has its foundation in English Law. In case of English Law, the

defence of intoxication is not codified under any specific section whereas in

Indian law, it is codified under Sections 85 and 86 of Indian Penal Code.

Compared to English Law, in Indian law the clause that the drug has to be

administered against the will of the individual is given more importance.17

Similarly, the division between specific intent and basic intent is given lot of

importance in English law which helps in reducing the severity of the

punishment. Like Indian law, British law has not elaborated the distinction

between knowledge and intent like it had given for basic intent and specific

intent.

Dutch Courage Rule

The word alcohol is generally associated with violence or crime or

aggressiveness. Usually, men consume alcohol not only for pleasure or getting

high but also to tackle depression or to forget hurt or pain in order to soothe

their nerves or to escape from real world or pain or depression. In that state of

15

http://www.thelegalhighness.com/ 16

http://www.shareyouressays.com/ 17

http://www.senseoflaw.blogspot.com/


1285

mind he is far from reality and he imagines himself overcoming his problems

bravely.18

Apart from this there is another reason for taking alcohol which is to

build up courage19

Drinking causes sense of self restraint and deprives him of

his sense of reason to such an extent that he may not even realise that what he is

doing is illegal. The person before drinking plans what he has to do and build up

courage to do that act which is known as „Dutch Courage‟. There are various

cases among that one is Attorney General Northern Ireland vs. Gallagher .20

4. Conclusion

The idea of intoxication is different during different times in different societies.

Some societies considering alcohol consumption as religious or social rites

whereas some consider it as an immoral or sinful act. Taking into consideration

all this, to bring about a proper society, modern law criminalised intoxication

per se and at the same time adopted more neutral standards based on whether an

act arising from intoxication is voluntary or involuntary. Therefore, the viability

of any defence of a criminal act rests on the combination of the voluntary and

involuntary principle and the universal knowledge that consumption of

intoxicants is likely to induce loss of control. The evolution of law in this area

reflects a careful application of these standards. Over years this issue has come

to an end stating that, intoxication is not a very strong defence and even if it

tries to commute the punishment , it cannot escape a person from his liability.

This is taken into consideration because absolute and cold logic cannot be

applied to human affairs, as they require certain flexibility in their dealing. A

normal person doesn‟t give much value for the law if an intoxicated man attack

him, and the man gets away with his conduct merely because he was too

intoxicated to think clear.

References

[1] Pillai, P.S.A., Criminal law, lexisnexis, 13th edn.,(2017)

[2] Ratanlal, Dhirajlal., The Indian Penal Code, lexisnexis, 35th edn., (2017)

[3] Loughnan, Arlie, The Law of Intoxicated Offending, Oxford University Press, pg.365-373, (2016)

[4] Madhuri, B., Intoxication – A Brief Analysis of Section 85 and 86 of IPC (2015)

[5] Hall, Jorome., Intoxication and Criminal Responsibility, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 57, pg. 1047- 1050,1993

18

http;//www.pathlegal.in/ 19

http://www.termpaperhouse.com/ 20

(1963) AC 349


1286

[6] Keiter, Mitchell, Just Say No Excuse :The Rise and Fall of the Intoxication Defense, Journal of Criminal lAw and Criminology, Vol. 87, Iss. 2 Winter, 2016

[7] Dadiya, Jinal., Intoxication as a defence in Criminal law – Can intent Be Inferred In Voluntary Intoxication, Indian Journal Of Law and Legal Jurisprudence, vol. 4, pg. 54-56, 2016

[8] Widhanpathrana, Shiran. H., Intoxication as a Defence, Indian Journal of Law , (2015)

[9] Thakur, Pushkar., Intoxication as a defence, Indian Journal of Law , (2014)

[10] Sadanandan, Renjith., Intoxication as a Defence in IPC, senseoflawblog, 2017.

[11] D., Divya, Kumawat, Pankaj., General Exceptions under the IPC, 2013.

[12] P, Pricilla, Hepitha., N, Janani., Insights of Intoxication – A Legal Perspective, International Journal of Legal Insight, Vol. 1, Iss. 4, 2016.

[13] Dasari, Harish., Chavali, K.H., Bansal, S, Yogende., Medico legal implications of Legal Consumptions, J Indian Acad Forensic Med, 31 (3), 2015.

[14] Ashokan, T.V., The Insanity Defence, Indian Journal Of Psychiatry, Vol. 58, pp.151-158, 2016.

[15] Gupta, Apeksha., Defence under Intoxication, Lexkhoj International Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. I, Iss. II, 2013.

[16] Meloy, Reid, J., Voluntary Intoxication and the Insanity Defences, The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 1992.

[17] Marlowe, B, Douglas., Voluntary Intoxication and Criminal Responsibility, The International Social Science Journal, Vol.17, Iss.2, 1999

[18] William, Rebecca., Voluntary Intoxication – Sexual Assault, The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol.66, Iss.2, pp.260-262, 2007

[19] McCord, David., History of Voluntary Intoxication, The Journal of Legal History, Vol.11, Iss.3, pp. 372-395, 2007

[20] Brooks, Thom., Involuntary Intoxication, The Journal of Criminal Law, Vol.79(2), pp. 138-146, 2015


1287

1288

Voluntary Intoxication - As An Exception Under IPC · Intoxication is a state wherein the person becomes incapable of their actions because of the ingestion of undue amount of drugs

Documents