INTOXICATION
INTOXICATION
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SEC
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF SEC
85 AND SEC 86 OF THE
85 AND SEC 86 OF THE
IN-DIAN PENAL CODE.
DONE BY:
DONE BY:
B.MADHURI
B.MADHURI
1ST
1ST YEAR
YEAR B.L
B.L (HONS)
(HONS)
T
T
ABLE OF CONTENTS
ABLE OF CONTENTS
(i)
(i)
IN
INTR
TRODU
ODUCT
CTION
ION TO
TO IN
INT
TOX
OXIC
ICAT
ATIO
ION.
N....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...3
3
(ii)
(ii)
DR
DRUN
UNKEN
KENESS
ESS...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...3
3
(iii
(iii)
)
SEC
SECTIO
TIONS
NS FO
FOR
R IN
INT
TOX
OXIC
ICAT
ATIO
ION
N IN
IN IPC
IPC...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
....4
.4
(iv)
(iv)
W
WA
AYS
YS OF
OF IN
INTO
TOXIC
XICAT
ATION
ION....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...5
....5
((v
v)
)
T
TY
YP
PE
ES
S O
OF
F IIN
NT
TO
OX
XIIC
CA
AT
TIIO
ON
N
(a)
(a) VOL
VOLUN
UNTAR
TARY INTOXIC
Y INTOXICATION...
ATION...
...
...5
...5
(b) INVOLUNTARY INTOXIACTION...6
(b) INVOLUNTARY INTOXIACTION...6
(vi)
(vi)
ONU
ONUS
S OF
OF PRO
PROO
OF.
F....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...7
.7
((v
viiii)
)
C
CA
AS
SE
E L
LA
AW
WS
S
(a)
(a) Basudev v. Sta
Basudev v. State of
te of Peps
Pepsu...
u...
...
...8
...8
(b)
(b) Ve
Venkappa Kann
nkappa Kannappa Chowdh
appa Chowdhari v. State of Karnataka
ari v. State of Karnataka....8
....8
(c)
(c) Macherla Balaswa
Macherla Balaswamy of Guntur v.
my of Guntur v. State of T
State of Tam
amil Nadu....8
il Nadu....8
(d)
(d) The public
The public prosecut
prosecutor v. Budipiti Devasika
or v. Budipiti Devasikamani...
mani...
...10
10
(e)
(e) Sheikh
Sheikh Falsa
Falsar
r v. State 2006...
v. State 2006...
...
...11
11
(viii)
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION -The topic that I
The topic that I have selectehave selected falls under the category d falls under the category of defenses. In certain of defenses. In certain instancesinstances due to
due to circumstances circumstances or other ror other reasons that easons that are beare beyond an yond an individualindividual s control h‟‟s control he indulgese indulges in criminal behavior. This also forms an integral part
in criminal behavior. This also forms an integral part of the law because as it of the law because as it is imperativeis imperative to punish the guilty, not even a single innocent man must be convicted. The defenses have to punish the guilty, not even a single innocent man must be convicted. The defenses have been specially formulated so that they are able to meet
been specially formulated so that they are able to meet every circumstance.every circumstance. Though a defense does not rescue an individual from liability
Though a defense does not rescue an individual from liability totallytotally, it does reduce the, it does reduce the severity of his punishment for he can be
severity of his punishment for he can be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting toconvicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder rather than
murder rather than murder. Intmurder. Intoxication is one such oxication is one such defense.defense. I will start
I will start with dealing with the origin of the concept, meaning the legal stand on the issuewith dealing with the origin of the concept, meaning the legal stand on the issue as it has been.
as it has been. IntoxicaIntoxication is codified in section 85 and 86 otion is codified in section 85 and 86 of the Indian penal code.f the Indian penal code. What is drunkenness?
What is drunkenness?
Drunkenness is a consequence of drinking intoxicating liquors to such an extent as to alter Drunkenness is a consequence of drinking intoxicating liquors to such an extent as to alter
and conduct. It can be asserted as a defense in civil and criminal actions in which the state and conduct. It can be asserted as a defense in civil and criminal actions in which the state of mind of the defendant is an essential element to be established in order to obtain legal of mind of the defendant is an essential element to be established in order to obtain legal relief.
relief.
What is the state of
What is the state of intoxicaintoxication reffered to in tion reffered to in Section 85 and Section 86 of Section 85 and Section 86 of the Penalthe Penal Code?
Code?
There are of course many varying degrees of drunkenness which culminate in a
There are of course many varying degrees of drunkenness which culminate in a state instate in which the person becomes incapable of knowing the nature of
which the person becomes incapable of knowing the nature of any act. The word “state ofany act. The word “state of intoxication”
intoxication”
In Section 86 can only
In Section 86 can only mean intoxication which renders a person incapable of knowing themean intoxication which renders a person incapable of knowing the nature of the act in question or that he is doing what
nature of the act in question or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to lawis either wrong or contrary to law when he commits the act.
when he commits the act. It would be extremely dangerous to extend the protection underIt would be extremely dangerous to extend the protection under Section 86, Penal Code to persons who commit serious
Section 86, Penal Code to persons who commit serious offence under the influence ofoffence under the influence of liquor in varying
liquor in varying stages and differentiate culpability in their favour as opposed to similar stages and differentiate culpability in their favour as opposed to similar of- of-fence by perfectly sober persons. Drunkenness makes no difference in the knowledge with fence by perfectly sober persons. Drunkenness makes no difference in the knowledge with which a man is
which a man is charged and a man knew what the charged and a man knew what the natural consequences of his acts wherenatural consequences of his acts where it must be presumed to have intended to have caused them. Section 85 of the Indian Penal it must be presumed to have intended to have caused them. Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the question of
Code deals with the question of knowledge possessed by an accused person at the timeknowledge possessed by an accused person at the time he commits the offence and
he commits the offence and leaves quite open the question of intention. There must beleaves quite open the question of intention. There must be some material record to show that the
some material record to show that the accused person was so intoxicaaccused person was so intoxicated thathe was outted thathe was out of his mind for that period of t
of his mind for that period of time when he was committing the offence otherwise he canime when he was committing the offence otherwise he can not avail the benefits of Sec 85
not avail the benefits of Sec 85 and Sec 86. No question of and Sec 86. No question of drunkeness arises here, butdrunkeness arises here, but the level of drunkeness plays a vital
the level of drunkeness plays a vital role.role.
Intoxication can be understood as the state of a person
Intoxication can be understood as the state of a person when he has consumed alcohol orwhen he has consumed alcohol or any drug that changes his thought process and tends him to
any drug that changes his thought process and tends him to behavbehave in a manner, that hee in a manner, that he would not behaved in, if he was not under the
would not behaved in, if he was not under the influence of that parinfluence of that particular substance. Intoxi-ticular substance. Intoxi-cation and drunkenness are two words that can be used inter
cation and drunkenness are two words that can be used inter changeablchangeably. A person who isy. A person who is under the influence of alcohol does
under the influence of alcohol does not usually think before he says or does something.not usually think before he says or does something. The level of alcohol the person has consumed also plays a vital
The level of alcohol the person has consumed also plays a vital role in his behavior, gener-role in his behavior, gener-ally people who has consume alcohol to a
ally people who has consume alcohol to a large extent are the ones who act in large extent are the ones who act in an inappro-an inappro-priate manner. Th
priate manner. They are similar to people of ey are similar to people of unsound mind. They do not know the conse-unsound mind. They do not know the conse-quences of the act that
quences of the act that they engage themselvethey engage themselves in, they might also s in, they might also not know that the actnot know that the act that they are doing is ill
that they are doing is illegal and would be punished for the egal and would be punished for the same. But there are also casessame. But there are also cases when the “intoxicated person” who has committed a crime would not be
when the “intoxicated person” who has committed a crime would not be punished, this ispunished, this is when the intoxication has occurred involuntarily and the burden of proof that he
when the intoxication has occurred involuntarily and the burden of proof that he was intoxi-was intoxi-cated against his will lies i
cated against his will lies in the hands of the n the hands of the accused. Therefore, in this paper we are go-accused. Therefore, in this paper we are go-ing to discuss in detail about the types of intoxication, the burden of proof, how it is ing to discuss in detail about the types of intoxication, the burden of proof, how it is diag-nosed and few of the landmark
SECTIONS AND
SECTIONS AND PROVPROVISIONSISIONS Sec 85 and Sec 86
Sec 85 and Sec 86 of the Indian Penal Code deal with of the Indian Penal Code deal with intoxication.intoxication. Sec 85 -
Sec 85 - Act of a person incapable of Act of a person incapable of judgement by reason of intoxication caused againstjudgement by reason of intoxication caused against his will.
his will.
The provision says “ Nothing is an offence which is
The provision says “ Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at done by a person who, at the time ofthe time of doing it, is,
doing it, is, by the reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the by the reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or thatact, or that he is doing what
he is doing what is either wrong, or is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicat- intoxicat-ed him ws administerintoxicat-ed to him without
ed him ws administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.”his knowledge or against his will.”
This section means that if a person does something against the law i.e, illegal in nature This section means that if a person does something against the law i.e, illegal in nature be-cause he is intoxicated without knowing the nature of the act
cause he is intoxicated without knowing the nature of the act he is exempted from liabilitieshe is exempted from liabilities and the act done by him
and the act done by him is not considered as an offence given that he is not considered as an offence given that he was intoxicawas intoxicatedted against his will that
against his will that is without his knowledge.is without his knowledge. Sec 86 -
Sec 86 - Offence requiring a particular Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxi-intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxi-cated.
cated.
The provision says that “ In cases where an act
The provision says that “ In cases where an act done is not an odone is not an offence unless done with affence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be laible to be dealt
laible to be dealt with as if with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had nothe had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which
been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicaintoxicated him was administered to ted him was administered to him withouthim without his knowledge or against his will.
his knowledge or against his will. This means that if
This means that if a person has an intention to a person has an intention to do the act even before he was intoxicateddo the act even before he was intoxicated and committs the act after intoxication, it will mean under the eyes of law that the act was and committs the act after intoxication, it will mean under the eyes of law that the act was done like as if he
done like as if he was not intoxicatedwas not intoxicated. This is valid as . This is valid as a defense only if the intoxication wasa defense only if the intoxication was involuntary.
involuntary.
W
WAYAYS IN WHS IN WHICH A ICH A PERSON PERSON CAN BE INTOXICACAN BE INTOXICATEDTED A person can be i
A person can be intoxicantoxicated in a number of ted in a number of waysways, but the , but the most common way would eithermost common way would either be drugs or alcohol. Al
be drugs or alcohol. Alcohol intoxication is other wise called inebriation. The other types ofcohol intoxication is other wise called inebriation. The other types of intoxication include:
Substance intoxication
Substance intoxication
Alcohol intoxication
Alcohol intoxication
Opioid intoxication
Opioid intoxication (T(Toxidromoxidrome) - e) - Hypertension and hallucination. This Hypertension and hallucination. This is also commonlyis also commonly caused due to drug overdose.
caused due to drug overdose. Cannabinoid intoxication
Cannabinoid intoxication - caused due to overdose of medication for nausea and pain.- caused due to overdose of medication for nausea and pain. Sedative
Sedative andand HypnoticHypnoticintoxication (seeintoxication (see benzodiazepine benzodiazepine overdosoverdosee andand barbituratebarbiturate
overdose overdose)) Cocaine intoxication Cocaine intoxication Caffeine Intoxication Caffeine Intoxication Hallucinogen
Hallucinogen intoxicaintoxicationtion
Stimulant intoxication Stimulant intoxication Water intoxication Water intoxication Drug overdose Drug overdose Inhalant intoxication Inhalant intoxication Intoxication (album) Intoxication (album)
Intoxication can occur in any of the above mentioned ways
Intoxication can occur in any of the above mentioned ways. But if . But if the person that has beenthe person that has been intoxica
intoxicated commits a crime, ted commits a crime, he will be held he will be held liable depending upon how he was intoxicated.liable depending upon how he was intoxicated. The intention (
The intention ( mens rea )mens rea ) behind the act will also play a vital role. If the person had the behind the act will also play a vital role. If the person had the in- in-tention to commit a crime
tention to commit a crime before he was under the influence of tbefore he was under the influence of the substance and washe substance and was very well aware of the legal consequences and commits the
very well aware of the legal consequences and commits the crime after consuming the in-crime after consuming the in-toxicate
toxicated substance voluntarily he will be held d substance voluntarily he will be held liable. But if liable. But if the person commits the crimethe person commits the crime after consuming the intoxicated substance without the knowledge of the legal consequnces after consuming the intoxicated substance without the knowledge of the legal consequnces and the act itself, the case will be di
and the act itself, the case will be different because here it has to be considered if the per-fferent because here it has to be considered if the per-son was intoxicated voluntarily or involuntarily
son was intoxicated voluntarily or involuntarily. We will now . We will now discuss voluntary and involun-discuss voluntary and involun-tary
tary intoxicaintoxication.tion.
TYPES OF INTOXICATION TYPES OF INTOXICATION Intoxication can be of two types: Intoxication can be of two types: (i)
(i) VoVoluntluntary intary intoxicoxication ation - Thi- This is s is wherwhere the the pee person rson who who consuconsumes mes the the intointoxicaxicated sted sub- ub-stance consumes it with full
stance consumes it with full knowledge and by his own will and wish knowledge and by his own will and wish wihtout any compul-wihtout any compul-sion of others. Even though voluntary intoxication means that someone has consumed sion of others. Even though voluntary intoxication means that someone has consumed in-toxicating substanc
toxicating substances with their own es with their own free will, he may still free will, he may still have a defense to the offencehave a defense to the offence with which he is charged. The intent in case of a crime is very i
with which he is charged. The intent in case of a crime is very important and even thoughmportant and even though a person maybe voluntarily intoxica
a person maybe voluntarily intoxicated, the very fact ted, the very fact that he is unable to that he is unable to form the requiredform the required intent works in his favor. The sev
intent works in his favor. The severity of the punishment is erity of the punishment is reduced due to this defense; forreduced due to this defense; for instance, an individual will be
instance, an individual will be punished for the crime of punished for the crime of manslaughter rather than the moremanslaughter rather than the more serious crime of murder. A crime requiring specific intent may be reduced to one
basic intent. An
basic intent. An intoxicanintoxicant does t does not have any separate ‘class’ but it not have any separate ‘class’ but it refers to any substance,refers to any substance, which has an effect
which has an effect on the consciousness or the decision-making capacity of a person-on the consciousness or the decision-making capacity of a person-.Acts done under such
.Acts done under such circumstances are not exemptecircumstances are not exempted from any d from any liability. He shall beliability. He shall be deemed to have done the act that was against the law
deemed to have done the act that was against the law like as if he was not intoxicated, thelike as if he was not intoxicated, the knowledge of the intoxicated can in no way be of defense but the intention of
knowledge of the intoxicated can in no way be of defense but the intention of the person isthe person is to be regarded depending upon the situation of
to be regarded depending upon the situation of the case. More often than the case. More often than not intention andnot intention and knowledge merge. Intention is something which is prompted by motive and knowledge is knowledge merge. Intention is something which is prompted by motive and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. So if
an awareness of the consequences of the act. So if the person is said to the person is said to have sufficienthave sufficient knowledge about the act he is
knowledge about the act he is also said to have the intention. If the also said to have the intention. If the person knew before heperson knew before he was intoxica
was intoxicated that an act ted that an act he does will result he does will result in death (knowledge) and commits the actin death (knowledge) and commits the act after being intoxicated voluntarily he will be punished under IPC.
after being intoxicated voluntarily he will be punished under IPC.
((iii)i) IInnvvoolluunntatary iry innttooxxiiccaattioionn
As opposed to voluntary, involuntary intoxication is when the
As opposed to voluntary, involuntary intoxication is when the person has been intoxicatedperson has been intoxicated against his will and knowledge. This ser
against his will and knowledge. This serves as a defense to the accused because the wasves as a defense to the accused because the was incapable of knowing the nature of the
incapable of knowing the nature of the act. A person seeking protection of sec act. A person seeking protection of sec 86 has to86 has to establish :
establish : (a)
(a) thathat he t he wawas ins incapcapablable of e of knoknowinwing thg the ne natuature ore of thf the ae act oct or acr acts cts commommittitteded (b
(b)) ththat hat he de dididnt knt knonow thw that hat he we was as dodoining sg somometethihing ng cocontntrarrary to y to lalaww (c)
(c) thathat tht the the thing ing whiwhich ich intntoxoxicaicated ted to hto him wim was as agaagainsinsr hir his wis will/ wll/ withithout out his his coconsensent.nt. Section 85 applies
Section 85 applies only in cases of only in cases of involuntary intoxication (drunkennesinvoluntary intoxication (drunkenness). Voluntarys). Voluntary drunkenness is no excu
drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of se for the commission of the crime.the crime.
Where the accused could not show that he was under
Where the accused could not show that he was under the influence of liquor the influence of liquor at the time ofat the time of the commission of the of
the commission of the offence, the benefit of Section 85 fence, the benefit of Section 85 was not given.was not given. Situations where a person cannot claim the benefit of Sec 85 of IPC Situations where a person cannot claim the benefit of Sec 85 of IPC (i) Where the intoxication is administered to the accu
(i) Where the intoxication is administered to the accused by stratagem or fraud of sed by stratagem or fraud of anotheanother,r, as when mixed with his food or
(ii) On this view if
(ii) On this view if friends or relatives pfriends or relatives persuade a person to drink a little more than ersuade a person to drink a little more than he canhe can reasonably digest, he cannot complain that he was made to drink
reasonably digest, he cannot complain that he was made to drink a little more than a little more than he canhe can reasonably digest, he cannot complain that he was made to drink
reasonably digest, he cannot complain that he was made to drink against his will.against his will. (iii) Where an accused takes liquor
(iii) Where an accused takes liquor to alleviate pain, it is not to alleviate pain, it is not a case of involuntary drunken-a case of involuntary drunken-ness and the accused is not protected by Section 85.
ness and the accused is not protected by Section 85. Drunkenness ma
Drunkenness may in extreme cases result in delirium, y in extreme cases result in delirium, tremors or insanity- whether tempo-tremors or insanity- whether tempo-rary or permanent and if it
rary or permanent and if it is does so, the offender will be held not guilty. Unless drunken-is does so, the offender will be held not guilty. Unless drunken-ness either amounts to unsounddrunken-ness of mind so
ness either amounts to unsoundness of mind so as to enable insanity to beas to enable insanity to be
pleaded by way of defence, or the degree of drunkenness is such as to establish pleaded by way of defence, or the degree of drunkenness is such as to establish incapaci-ty in the
ty in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, drunkenness is nei-crime, drunkenness is nei-ther a defence nor a
ther a defence nor a palliation.palliation. It is not
It is not necessary that in all necessary that in all cases involuntary intoxicacases involuntary intoxication will be tion will be excexcused by the law. Thisused by the law. This can be explained with the help of
can be explained with the help of the following case laws.the following case laws.
ONUS OF PROOF ( Difficulty of proof ) ONUS OF PROOF ( Difficulty of proof ) The onus of proof about reason of
The onus of proof about reason of intoxication due to which the accused had become inca-intoxication due to which the accused had become inca-pable of having particular knowledge in forming the particular intention was on the
pable of having particular knowledge in forming the particular intention was on the ac-cused. Basically there are three propositions as regards the scope and ambit of
cused. Basically there are three propositions as regards the scope and ambit of SectionSection 85, IPC. (
85, IPC. ( mentioned under involuntary intoxication). The normal presumption is that a manmentioned under involuntary intoxication). The normal presumption is that a man intends the normal consequences of his acts. In
intends the normal consequences of his acts. In a case where the defence is of a case where the defence is of drinking itdrinking it is for the
is for the accused to lead evidence to rebut such presumption by giving evidence of hisaccused to lead evidence to rebut such presumption by giving evidence of his drunkenness and provi
drunkenness and proving the degree of his ng the degree of his intoxication to show that his mind was so af-intoxication to show that his mind was so af-fected by drink that he was not in
crime. Therefore, the burnden of proof that
crime. Therefore, the burnden of proof that he/she committed the crime only because ofhe/she committed the crime only because of the presence of alcohol in their body and would not have do
the presence of alcohol in their body and would not have done so if not for it lies ine so if not for it lies in then the hands of the accused. This burden of
hands of the accused. This burden of proving innocence is not an easy task.proving innocence is not an easy task. The person cannot say that he committed a mistake while he
The person cannot say that he committed a mistake while he was drunk. The consumptionwas drunk. The consumption of the intoxicated drink itself cannot be an excuse, if a person says that he was intoxicated of the intoxicated drink itself cannot be an excuse, if a person says that he was intoxicated to a level that he got the idea of committing the crime only after the alcohol entered his to a level that he got the idea of committing the crime only after the alcohol entered his body and that he would have not acted in the
body and that he would have not acted in the way he did if he were sober it way he did if he were sober it will not standwill not stand as a defence. Since if
as a defence. Since if an honest and reasonable mistake by sober person cannot afford aan honest and reasonable mistake by sober person cannot afford a defence, a mistake while drunk cannot do so.
Case Laws Case Laws
Basudev v. State of Pepsu Basudev v. State of Pepsu A retired military
A retired military officer was charged with the officer was charged with the murder of a young boy of 15 or 16. Both ofmurder of a young boy of 15 or 16. Both of them and others of the
them and others of the same village attended a marriage party. All of same village attended a marriage party. All of them went to thethem went to the house of the bride to
house of the bride to attend the mid-day meal. Some had settled down in attend the mid-day meal. Some had settled down in their seats andtheir seats and some had not. A milita
some had not. A military who was very ry who was very drunk and intoxicated, askdrunk and intoxicated, asked the young boy to steped the young boy to step aside a little so
aside a little so that he may occupy a convenient seat. But, when he did not that he may occupy a convenient seat. But, when he did not move, the mili-move, the mili-tary officer
tary officer whipped out a pistol and shot him in the abdomen. The injury proved fatal. Thewhipped out a pistol and shot him in the abdomen. The injury proved fatal. The evidence showed that the accused sometimes staggered and sometimes
evidence showed that the accused sometimes staggered and sometimes was incoherentwas incoherent in his talk.
in his talk. But it was shown that he But it was shown that he was capable of moving himself independently and waswas capable of moving himself independently and was capable of talking coherently as well. The evidence proved that he came on his
capable of talking coherently as well. The evidence proved that he came on his own to theown to the house of the bride and that he made the choice of his own seat after injuring
house of the bride and that he made the choice of his own seat after injuring the de-the de-ceased, he attempted to get away and was secured a short distance from the
ceased, he attempted to get away and was secured a short distance from the scene. Whenscene. When he was secured, he realized what he had done
he was secured, he realized what he had done and asked for forgiveness. All these facts,and asked for forgiveness. All these facts, according to the SC, go
according to the SC, go to prove that there was no proved incapacity on the accused toto prove that there was no proved incapacity on the accused to form the intention to cause bodily harm sufficient in the ordinary course of the
form the intention to cause bodily harm sufficient in the ordinary course of the nature tonature to cause death. In view of
cause death. In view of his failure to prove such incapacityhis failure to prove such incapacity, the law presumed that he in-, the law presumed that he in-tended the natural and probable consequences of his act. In
tended the natural and probable consequences of his act. In other words, he intended toother words, he intended to inflict bodily injuries on
inflict bodily injuries on the deceased and the bodily injuries so the deceased and the bodily injuries so intended to be inflicted, wasintended to be inflicted, was sufficient in the ordinary
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused was focourse of nature to cause death. The accused was found guilty ofund guilty of murder and was convicted under Sec 302.
murder and was convicted under Sec 302.
Venkappa Kannappa Chowdhari v. State of Karnataka Venkappa Kannappa Chowdhari v. State of Karnataka
The accused, quarrelsome by nature, was addicted to liquor. The son of the accused died The accused, quarrelsome by nature, was addicted to liquor. The son of the accused died in a
in a motor accident. The accused wanted the motor accident. The accused wanted the compensation amount of 10000, which wascompensation amount of 10000, which was in the name of
in the name of the accused’s wife. On the day of the decision, he the accused’s wife. On the day of the decision, he came home drunk andcame home drunk and asked his wife to withdraw the fixed deposit amount. When his wife
asked his wife to withdraw the fixed deposit amount. When his wife refused to complyrefused to comply, he, he beat her, took a tin of kerosene oil, sprinkled it
beat her, took a tin of kerosene oil, sprinkled it on her and set her on her and set her on fire. His wifeon fire. His wife screamed and the neighbors took her to the
screamed and the neighbors took her to the hospital. A dying declaration was recorded.hospital. A dying declaration was recorded. The accused took the plea of incapacity due
The accused took the plea of incapacity due to intoxication u/s 85 IPC. His plea to intoxication u/s 85 IPC. His plea was reject-was reject-ed because he had
ed because he had voluntarily consumed alcohol. He was convicted and sentenced to voluntarily consumed alcohol. He was convicted and sentenced to lifelife imprisonment.
Macherla Balaswamy of Guntur v. State of Tamil Nadu Macherla Balaswamy of Guntur v. State of Tamil Nadu
Appellant and Venkayya lived very close to each other in Guntur Town. Venkayya had a Appellant and Venkayya lived very close to each other in Guntur Town. Venkayya had a petty shop by the road side. There was evidence of some previous ill-feeling between them petty shop by the road side. There was evidence of some previous ill-feeling between them over the purchase of a
over the purchase of a house, which wa ultimately bought house, which wa ultimately bought by venkayby venkayya in competition ya in competition withwith the appellant. Venk
the appellant. Venkayya said that he filed a ayya said that he filed a complaint against the appellant about a yearcomplaint against the appellant about a year ago before this offense, which was dismissed.
ago before this offense, which was dismissed. According to the evidnece of
According to the evidnece of VenkVenkayya and two eye witness whom the ayya and two eye witness whom the trail court trail court believed,believed, was that between 6:30 and 7pm on 19-4-1950, Venkayya was ssitting on a bench near his was that between 6:30 and 7pm on 19-4-1950, Venkayya was ssitting on a bench near his shop. Appellant suddenly came near him with
shop. Appellant suddenly came near him with a knife and started stabbing him. a knife and started stabbing him. WhenWhen Venkayya’s sister, who was sitting at the shop counter came to intervene, he stabbed her Venkayya’s sister, who was sitting at the shop counter came to intervene, he stabbed her in the stomach. Appellant then ran away. Venkayya and his sister Bhudevamma were both in the stomach. Appellant then ran away. Venkayya and his sister Bhudevamma were both taken to the Central Crime Station
taken to the Central Crime Station and a statement was made by Bhudevamma where sheand a statement was made by Bhudevamma where she described that the appellant was fully drunk
described that the appellant was fully drunk though there was no referance to that. The ap-though there was no referance to that. The ap-pellant was arrested two days later by a head constable who also said he
pellant was arrested two days later by a head constable who also said he was in a drunkenwas in a drunken condition even during the arrest.
condition even during the arrest. There can be no doubt that
There can be no doubt that despite the opinion of the assessors, who despite the opinion of the assessors, who thought that appel-thought that appel-lant was not guilty, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly found that appelappel-lant it
lant was not guilty, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly found that appellant it was whowas who stabbed both Venkayya and Bhudevamma. Mr. Jayarama Ayyar for the appellant has not stabbed both Venkayya and Bhudevamma. Mr. Jayarama Ayyar for the appellant has not seriously challenged this finding and concentrated his argument before the court
seriously challenged this finding and concentrated his argument before the court on theon the plea of intoxication, which he urged in t
plea of intoxication, which he urged in this case would, under Section 88, Penal Code re-his case would, under Section 88, Penal Code re-duce the offence from murder
duce the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The injuries on Venkayya may well have had fatal consequences. He was stabbed twice in The injuries on Venkayya may well have had fatal consequences. He was stabbed twice in the chest and once in the abdomen. One chest wound was 11/2" deep and the abdominal the chest and once in the abdomen. One chest wound was 11/2" deep and the abdominal wound is also described as 1
wound is also described as 11/2" deep. As 1/2" deep. As the doctor the doctor has deposed these wounds were has deposed these wounds were onon vital parts
vital parts of the body and if of the body and if they had penetrated a little furththey had penetrated a little furtherer, they may have caused, they may have caused danger to life. Bhudevamma had a penetrating wound, not so deep, viz.,
danger to life. Bhudevamma had a penetrating wound, not so deep, viz., 3/4" x 1/4" x 3/4" x 1/4" x 1/2"1/2" on the l
on the left side eft side of the chest of the chest which unfortunately, howwhich unfortunately, howeveever, punctured the stomach. In r, punctured the stomach. In con- con-sequence of this, she died in the hospital the following night.
sequence of this, she died in the hospital the following night.
As we understand Mr. Jayaram Ayyar's argument it is that appellant was in a state of As we understand Mr. Jayaram Ayyar's argument it is that appellant was in a state of intoxi-cation and therefore under Section 86, Penal Code, he is
cation and therefore under Section 86, Penal Code, he is not guilty of murder not guilty of murder which re-which re-quires a particular knowledge or intent and would be liable to be dealt with as if he quires a particular knowledge or intent and would be liable to be dealt with as if he hadhad only the same knowledge as he would have had if he
only the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.had not been intoxicated. Appellant was been found guilty under S. 302,
Appellant was been found guilty under S. 302, Penal Code of the murder of Penal Code of the murder of BhudevBhudevammaamma by inflicting on her a
by inflicting on her a single stab in the single stab in the abdomen when she intervened when the appellantabdomen when she intervened when the appellant was stabbing her brother Venkayya . He has also been found guilty under Section 324, was stabbing her brother Venkayya . He has also been found guilty under Section 324, Pe-nal Cede, in respect of
at-tempting to murder him under Section 307, Penal Code. He has been sentenced to tempting to murder him under Section 307, Penal Code. He has been sentenced to trans-portation for
portation for life and to life and to two years rigorous Imprisonment respectivelytwo years rigorous Imprisonment respectively.. In this part
In this particular case, we are quite satisfied that icular case, we are quite satisfied that although the appellant may have beenalthough the appellant may have been the worse for liquor, he knew perfectly welt what he
the worse for liquor, he knew perfectly welt what he was doing when he came up towas doing when he came up to Venkayya with a knife and set about stabbing him, it would appear, murderously in his Venkayya with a knife and set about stabbing him, it would appear, murderously in his chest. The learned Sessions Judge appears to us to
chest. The learned Sessions Judge appears to us to have takehave taken a lenient and n a lenient and charitablecharitable view of the attack on Venkayya, which was really more murderous than that on his sister view of the attack on Venkayya, which was really more murderous than that on his sister Bhudeva
Bhudevamma, who intervened and received only one stab in mma, who intervened and received only one stab in her abdomen. A man, whoher abdomen. A man, who keeps on stabbing persons in vital part
keeps on stabbing persons in vital parts, must clearly be s, must clearly be presumed to know the conse-presumed to know the conse-quences of his acts and it is not open to him to plead that he was so drunk at the t
quences of his acts and it is not open to him to plead that he was so drunk at the time asime as not to know or intend what
not to know or intend what he was doing. We have no hesitation in rejecting this defencehe was doing. We have no hesitation in rejecting this defence based on the distinction between knowledge and intention in Section 86, Penal Code, put based on the distinction between knowledge and intention in Section 86, Penal Code, put forward to reduce the offence
forward to reduce the offence to one under Section 304, Penal Code.to one under Section 304, Penal Code. One of the witnesses to
One of the witnesses to the stabbing, told the investigating officer that he the stabbing, told the investigating officer that he saw the appel-saw the appel-lant and Venkayya were fighting before the stabbing. The learned Sessions Judge gave lant and Venkayya were fighting before the stabbing. The learned Sessions Judge gave this as one of
this as one of the reasons for not passing on the appellant the reasons for not passing on the appellant the extreme penaltythe extreme penalty. On the. On the whole, we do not think t
whole, we do not think that the extreme penalty was called for in this hat the extreme penalty was called for in this case. We confirm thecase. We confirm the convictions of the appellant and also the
convictions of the appellant and also the sentences passed on him, though we think, as re-sentences passed on him, though we think, as re-gards the attack on P.W. 1, he should have been more correctly convicted as charged gards the attack on P.W. 1, he should have been more correctly convicted as charged un-der Section 307 Penal Code, instead of unun-der Section 324, Penal Code.
der Section 307 Penal Code, instead of under Section 324, Penal Code.
THE PUBLIC PROSCECUTOR V. BUDIPITI DEVASIKAMANI THE PUBLIC PROSCECUTOR V. BUDIPITI DEVASIKAMANI
The accused in this case was charged before the learned Agency Sessions Judge, East The accused in this case was charged before the learned Agency Sessions Judge, East Godavari, that he, on the 19th of June, 1926, committed mischief by setting fire to the Godavari, that he, on the 19th of June, 1926, committed mischief by setting fire to the thatched building of the Board Elementary School at Gurtedu, with intent to destroy the thatched building of the Board Elementary School at Gurtedu, with intent to destroy the same, an offence punishable under Section 436
same, an offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecu-of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecu-tion case is that the accused took a torch from the kitchen, ran to the building, put it to the tion case is that the accused took a torch from the kitchen, ran to the building, put it to the thatch and then threw it on
thatch and then threw it on the roof of the the roof of the kitchen and ran awakitchen and ran away. The thatch caught fire andy. The thatch caught fire and the school building
the school building was completely destroywas completely destroyed. The learned Sessions ed. The learned Sessions Judge found that theJudge found that the accused set fire to the school building but
accused set fire to the school building but acquitted him on the ground that acquitted him on the ground that he was insanehe was insane at the time
at the time when he did it when he did it and was therefore incapable of forming the intention or of and was therefore incapable of forming the intention or of havinghaving the knowledge which forms an essential ingredient of the
the knowledge which forms an essential ingredient of the offence. Against this acquittal theoffence. Against this acquittal the Crown has presented this appeal. accused is a smoker of ganja. There is
show that, as a result of this vicious habit, he used to threaten to beat his father and show that, as a result of this vicious habit, he used to threaten to beat his father and chil-dren, and used to beat his
dren, and used to beat his wife and run away into the forest, he would not take his wife and run away into the forest, he would not take his foodfood properly and when he was given it he would throw it away. The evidence also shows that properly and when he was given it he would throw it away. The evidence also shows that he used to tear his cloth
he used to tear his cloth and wander about in the forest. He and wander about in the forest. He was kept under observation inwas kept under observation in the Central Tai
the Central Tail at Rajahmundry for a l at Rajahmundry for a fortnight. The Medical Ofortnight. The Medical Officer who examined himfficer who examined him found no reason to pronounce him insane at that
found no reason to pronounce him insane at that time.time. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the plea of
The learned Public Prosecutor contends that the plea of insanity is not borne out insanity is not borne out by theseby these facts, that at the
facts, that at the most the evidence would only show that the accused used to most the evidence would only show that the accused used to get voluntar-get voluntar-ily intoxicated by smoking ganja off and on and
ily intoxicated by smoking ganja off and on and that voluntary intoxication is no defence tothat voluntary intoxication is no defence to a criminal act.
a criminal act.
The learned lawyer for the accused argues that the evidence is to
The learned lawyer for the accused argues that the evidence is to the effect that the effect that ganjaganja smoking has induced in the accused incapacity to understand the quality
smoking has induced in the accused incapacity to understand the quality or nature of hisor nature of his wrongful act and has produced in him a condition akin to that of delirium tremens in the wrongful act and has produced in him a condition akin to that of delirium tremens in the case of a drunken man and that, even if this is not the case, under Section 86 of the Indian case of a drunken man and that, even if this is not the case, under Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code the accused can rely upon voluntary intoxication in defence when he is
Penal Code the accused can rely upon voluntary intoxication in defence when he is charged as in this case with an offence of which 'intent' is a necessary ingredient. charged as in this case with an offence of which 'intent' is a necessary ingredient. The onus of proving the defence afforded by Section 84
The onus of proving the defence afforded by Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code clearlyof the Indian Penal Code clearly rests upon the accused. As regards the first
rests upon the accused. As regards the first contention, we havcontention, we have no doubt that e no doubt that the evi-the evi-dence does not warrant a finding that
dence does not warrant a finding that the accused's habit of smoking ganja had ithe accused's habit of smoking ganja had induced innduced in him a diseased state of mind
him a diseased state of mind so as to make him incapable of so as to make him incapable of understanding the wrongful-understanding the wrongful-ness of his act.
ness of his act. The Civil Surgeon found 'no case to The Civil Surgeon found 'no case to pronounce him insane'; but accordingpronounce him insane'; but according to his evidence the accused looked "more sad than insane". Though smoking ganja might to his evidence the accused looked "more sad than insane". Though smoking ganja might account for the queer things which the accused used to do, we do not think that the facts in account for the queer things which the accused used to do, we do not think that the facts in this case, viewed in. the light
this case, viewed in. the light of well-known judicial decisions, such as Queen-Empress v.of well-known judicial decisions, such as Queen-Empress v. Ven
Venkataswami (18kataswami (1889), are strong enough 89), are strong enough to give him exemption from the to give him exemption from the criminality of criminality of hishis conduct under Section 84 of the
conduct under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The fact that he Indian Penal Code. The fact that he ran away after puttingran away after putting the torch to the thatch
the torch to the thatch shows that at the time he shows that at the time he committed the offence he was consciouscommitted the offence he was conscious that what he was doing was wrongful.
that what he was doing was wrongful.
As regards the second contention, the wording of Section 86
As regards the second contention, the wording of Section 86 of the Indian Penal Codeof the Indian Penal Code lends some support to
lends some support to the argument advanced before us. That section lays down that, inthe argument advanced before us. That section lays down that, in certain classes of cases, the intoxicated person shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had certain classes of cases, the intoxicated person shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had not been intoxicated; but it does not provide that an intoxicated person shall be dealt with not been intoxicated; but it does not provide that an intoxicated person shall be dealt with as if he
as if he had the same intent. Though ordinarily intention is had the same intent. Though ordinarily intention is to be inferred from knowledge,to be inferred from knowledge, there may be cases where intent must be found as a
there may be cases where intent must be found as a fact and cannot be assumed in whichfact and cannot be assumed in which cases voluntary drunkenness may be relied on to show that the required 'intent' is
This, we think, is t
This, we think, is the utmost that could be he utmost that could be said in favour of this contention. Even accordingsaid in favour of this contention. Even according to this restricted interpretation in this case, the
to this restricted interpretation in this case, the evidence makeevidence makes it clear s it clear that, in spite of that, in spite of thethe ganja smoking, the accused had the requisite criminal intent, because as
ganja smoking, the accused had the requisite criminal intent, because as soon as he putsoon as he put the torch to the thatch he ran away. He knew that the act he was doing was a wrongful one the torch to the thatch he ran away. He knew that the act he was doing was a wrongful one and from this knowledge we can assume that
and from this knowledge we can assume that he must have had the criminal 'intent' requi-he must have had the criminal 'intent' requi-site for the offence. Further, the evidence shows that the accused himself was a school site for the offence. Further, the evidence shows that the accused himself was a school master in the same school for
master in the same school for about a year and that, when his about a year and that, when his father who had retired fromfather who had retired from the school found that his son
the school found that his son was behaving badly he (the father) made a report was behaving badly he (the father) made a report asking forasking for his son six months' leave. The accused must have apprehended that the result of the his son six months' leave. The accused must have apprehended that the result of the re-port would be
port would be the termination of his connection with tthe termination of his connection with the school and therefore he must havehe school and therefore he must have deliberately set fire to
deliberately set fire to the building to the building to show his annoyance.show his annoyance. Therefore, the acquittal of the accused was set aside and
Therefore, the acquittal of the accused was set aside and convict him of the offence convict him of the offence underunder Section 436 of the
Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code with which he was charged and sentence him to un-Indian Penal Code with which he was charged and sentence him to un-dergo one year's rigorous impri
dergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.sonment.
Sheikh Falsar v. State ( 2006) Sheikh Falsar v. State ( 2006) Facts : A young girl of 7-8
Facts : A young girl of 7-8 years, had queued up along with other poor years, had queued up along with other poor and destitutes, whoand destitutes, who line up at the Delhi’s famous ‘ Hanuman Mandir’, to receive prasadam from the devotees line up at the Delhi’s famous ‘ Hanuman Mandir’, to receive prasadam from the devotees visiting the temple. Her mother and aunt were also waiting in the queue. The girl was visiting the temple. Her mother and aunt were also waiting in the queue. The girl was ap-proached by the appellant with a promise to
proached by the appellant with a promise to buy her bangles and a ‘pajeb’. The appellantbuy her bangles and a ‘pajeb’. The appellant took the young and unsespecting girl to a khatta
took the young and unsespecting girl to a khatta ( enclosure for garbage ) where hr ( enclosure for garbage ) where hr re- re-moved her frock and got her naked and committed rape on her. The act was committed in moved her frock and got her naked and committed rape on her. The act was committed in a gruesome manner. They hymen was torn. There was a second degree perennial tear a gruesome manner. They hymen was torn. There was a second degree perennial tear and profuse bleeding. the girl
and profuse bleeding. the girl even became unconeven became unconscious and her vagina had to bescious and her vagina had to be stitched. A public witness, named Ramesh kumar, heard the cries of a
stitched. A public witness, named Ramesh kumar, heard the cries of a girl, when she wasgirl, when she was being raped. He peeped in and
being raped. He peeped in and found the appellant weaing a banyan and tehmat. The ap-found the appellant weaing a banyan and tehmat. The ap-pellant thereupon left the girl and took to his heels. The witness along with a policde pellant thereupon left the girl and took to his heels. The witness along with a policde con-stable chased the appellant, who was apprehended after some distance and caught stable chased the appellant, who was apprehended after some distance and caught him.him. Medical evidence and reports corroborate the testimony of the girl
Medical evidence and reports corroborate the testimony of the girl and the public witnessand the public witness of rape having been committed by the appellant. The mother
of rape having been committed by the appellant. The mother of the girl of the girl was also examinewas also examined,d, who stated that after
who stated that after finding her daughter missing, she was looking for her finding her daughter missing, she was looking for her and found herand found her at Kotwali with her clothes soaked with blood.
at Kotwali with her clothes soaked with blood.
The appellant claims clean antecedents and stated that he has never been convicted The appellant claims clean antecedents and stated that he has never been convicted be-fore. The appellant in a
fore. The appellant in a statement under Section 31statement under Section 313 CRPC, while denying the charge stat-3 CRPC, while denying the charge stat-ed that he was under
Raina submitted that the appellant being intoxicated, could not be attributed with Raina submitted that the appellant being intoxicated, could not be attributed with knowl-edge and intention for his act.
edge and intention for his act.
He placed reliance on the judgment
He placed reliance on the judgment Basdev v. State of PepsuBasdev v. State of Pepsu . We are. We are not persuaded to accept this submission on behalf of
not persuaded to accept this submission on behalf of the appellant. Reference may bethe appellant. Reference may be made to Section 86 IPC. Section 86, IPC provides that a person who does an act in a state made to Section 86 IPC. Section 86, IPC provides that a person who does an act in a state of intoxication, shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he
of intoxication, shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have if he was
would have if he was not intoxicated; unless the intoxicant is administered without hisnot intoxicated; unless the intoxicant is administered without his knowledge or against his
knowledge or against his will. Moreoverwill. Moreover, the cited judgment , the cited judgment Itself recognizes that Itself recognizes that drunken- drunken-ness is ordinarily neither a
ness is ordinarily neither a defense nor excudefense nor excuse for crime, and se for crime, and where it is available as a par-where it is available as a par-tial answer to a charge, i
tial answer to a charge, it rests on the prisoner t rests on the prisoner to prove it. It is not to prove it. It is not enough that he was ex-enough that he was ex-cited or rendered more irritable, unless the
cited or rendered more irritable, unless the intoxication was such as to preveintoxication was such as to prevent his restrain-nt his restrain-ing himself from committrestrain-ing
ing himself from committing the act in question, or the act in question, or to take away from him the power ofto take away from him the power of forming any specific intention. Such a state of
forming any specific intention. Such a state of drunkennesdrunkenness has to be shown. In s has to be shown. In the instantthe instant case, no evidence of drunkenness has been led by the respondent. A perusal of
case, no evidence of drunkenness has been led by the respondent. A perusal of the medi-the medi-cal report of the appellant, who was examined on the same day at 4.45 p.m., i.e., within cal report of the appellant, who was examined on the same day at 4.45 p.m., i.e., within two hours of the
two hours of the crime, does not show or record any signs of crime, does not show or record any signs of drunkenness or alcohol hav-drunkenness or alcohol hav-ing been consumed. This plea is,
ing been consumed. This plea is, therefore, not availabtherefore, not available to the appellant.le to the appellant.
The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 366 and Section 376(2)(f) of The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 366 and Section 376(2)(f) of Indi-an Penal Code. Vide order of sentence dated 5th February, 2002, the appellIndi-ant was an Penal Code. Vide order of sentence dated 5th February, 2002, the appellant was sen-tenced to life imprisonment and a fine
tenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 376(2)of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 376(2) (f), IPC.
(f), IPC. In default of payment of fine, In default of payment of fine, appellant was to undergo further SI appellant was to undergo further SI for one yearfor one year. The. The appellant was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine years and a
appellant was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for nine years and a fine of Rs.fine of Rs. 10,
10,000/-. In default, simple 000/-. In default, simple imprisonment for one year for the imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 366,offence under Section 366, IPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently with the benefit of Section 428, Cr.P.C. IPC. Both the sentences are to run concurrently with the benefit of Section 428, Cr.P.C. also available to the appellant.
also available to the appellant.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
After analyzing the topic, it
After analyzing the topic, it can be said that can be said that intoxication is not a very strong defense, andintoxication is not a very strong defense, and even if it serves to reduce the
even if it serves to reduce the severity of a punishment, a person cannot escape compeletyseverity of a punishment, a person cannot escape compelety from liability. This is because common man will not have much respect for the
from liability. This is because common man will not have much respect for the law if a
law if a drunken man commits something against him, and the man gets away with his con-drunken man commits something against him, and the man gets away with his con-duct merely because he was too intoxicated to think clearly
duct merely because he was too intoxicated to think clearly. Law aims to do justice for . Law aims to do justice for all,all, in this case it clearly wouldnt be justice if the drunken man is let go on the basis of mere in this case it clearly wouldnt be justice if the drunken man is let go on the basis of mere in-toxciation.
toxciation.
More often than not people
technology prev
technology prevelant it is elant it is easy for the courts easy for the courts to analyse whether the accused was reallyto analyse whether the accused was really under the influence of alcohol or
under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicated subsother intoxicated substance if he was arrested or tance if he was arrested or takentaken into custody immediately after the crime scene. Witness
into custody immediately after the crime scene. Witness also play a big role in also play a big role in these casesthese cases where the judgements are to be taken where the accused was not arrested immediately where the judgements are to be taken where the accused was not arrested immediately af-ter the scene or where he
ter the scene or where he claims false intoxication.claims false intoxication. In India as well,
In India as well, the law that has been the law that has been followed till date has its foundation in followed till date has its foundation in the British law.the British law. The first categorical difference is
The first categorical difference is that in case of that in case of British law, the defence of intoxication isBritish law, the defence of intoxication is not codified under any specific section, while under
not codified under any specific section, while under the Indian law it has the Indian law it has been clearly codi-been clearly codi-fied in sections 85 and
BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY 1)
1) PSPSA PA Pillaillai’i’s Cs Crimriminainal lal law, w, K I K I VIBVIBHUTHUTE, tE, tententh eh editditionion.. 2)
2) THTHE INE INDIDIAN PAN PENENAL CAL CODODE, 1E, 18860 60 (2(200112)2) 3
3)) IInnddiiaannkkaannoooonn..oorrgg 4)
