Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

77. The last limb of argument raised on behalf of accused was that the act of accused in committing murder of Laxman Mukhiya was protected by Section 85 IPC. Ld defence counsel contended that as per the case of prosecution, accused had consumed liquor alongwith deceased just before committing his murder. Thus, the accused should be given the protection provided in Section 85 IPC. On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP argued that the exception provided in Section 85 IPC cannot be claimed by accused as it was not in­involuntary intoxication of accused against his will.
78. In order to appreciate the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 85 IPC, which is reproduced as under:­ "Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will:­ Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will."

79. It is quite evident from the bare reading of provision contained in Section 85 IPC that General Exception contained therein is applicable only when it is shown to the Court that accused was administered some substance without his knowledge or against his will and by reason of his intoxication under such a situation, he committed an offence being incapable of knowing the nature of the act committed by him.

80. Two things emerges out of the said propositions of law. Firstly, the accused has to show that his mental state of mind due to intoxication, was such that he was incapable of knowing the exact nature of his act or that he was not knowing that his act was wrong or contrary to law. Secondly, the accused has to show that he was administered some substance without his knowledge or against his will.

81. In the case in hand, both the aforesaid ingredients are found missing. The testimonies of public witnesses as discussed above, clearly shows that accused had consumed liquor voluntarily out of his own free will and thus, it is not a case where liquor was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. In the matter of "Mirza Ghani Baigh Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" reported at (1997) 2 Crimes 19 (AP), it has been held that voluntarily drunkness is not an excuse for commission of an offence. It has also been held in the same decision that Court must attribute FIR No. 363/13; U/s 302 IPC; P.S. Bawana D.O.D.: 31.08.2015 to the intoxicated man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober unless he was besides his mind altogether at the time of incident. The accused has also failed to bring any material on record showing or even suggesting that due to consumption of liquor, his mental state of mind was incapacitated to the extent that he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act in committing murder of Laxman Mukhiya. For all these reasons, I am of the view that defence in the form of General Exception provided in Section 85 IPC is not available to the accused in this case.