In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
IPC Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses situations where an intoxicated individual commits an offense requiring a specific intent or knowledge. This section elaborates on the principle that voluntary intoxication does not absolve an individual of criminal liability for acts committed while intoxicated, especially when those acts require a particular intent or knowledge.
Critical Aspects of IPC Section 86:
- Voluntary Intoxication: Section 86 makes a distinction based on whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary. It specifically addresses cases of voluntary intoxication, stating that being intoxicated is not an excuse for criminal behaviour, particularly for offences that require specific intent or knowledge.
- Intent or Knowledge “Despite” Intoxication: If a person, while intoxicated, commits an act that requires specific intent or knowledge, and it can be established that the person had the requisite intent or knowledge despite being drunk, then they can be held liable for the offence. Suppose the individual could form the necessary criminal intent or had the requisite expertise when committing the act. In that case, intoxication does not serve as a defence.
- Presumption of Intent or Knowledge: The section also states that if the act would naturally give rise to a specific intent or knowledge when committed by a sober person, then it is presumed that the intoxicated person had the same intent or knowledge. This presumption burdens the defence to prove that the accused could not form the specific purpose or have the required understanding due to intoxication.
- Effect of Intoxication on Liability: While voluntary intoxication does not absolve one of liability for crimes committed under its influence, the law recognizes that intoxication may impact the ability to form intent or possess knowledge. However, for criminal liability, if the offence was committed and required specific intent or understanding, the intoxicated state of the accused does not automatically negate this requirement.
