Section 85 and 86

Mahesha (Querist) 03 January 2013 This query is : Resolved
Dear According to section 85,
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by
reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which
intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Also it says:
(i) Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for commission of a crime

But section 86 slightly contradicts (I feel). 86 says:
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.

(ii) Sometimes intention on the part of the person who is drunk can also be
assessed from the nature of weapon used in the commission of the offence. If a
person uses a weapon which is not dangerous and the attack results in death, a malicious intention cannot be drawn against him even though drunkenness is no
excuse

So how voluntary drunkenness cases are handled? I am bit confused.

Follow Query

Report Abuse

ajay sethi (Expert) 03 January 2013
read commentary on section 85 and section 86 . if you drink and have commited offence you are liable .oly exeptio is when some one say spikes your drink and you had no knowledge that drinks had been mixed in your cold drinks or other beverages

Raj Kumar Makkad (Expert) 03 January 2013
Both sections are very clear in its interpretation so there should not have been any confusion thereto. Drunkenness is not a defence unless the same is not in the knowledge of the accused person.

Mahesha (Querist) 05 January 2013
Thank You Sir. There were couple of books which were making these interpretations in a confusing way. That is why I had doubt and wanted clarification. Anyway thanks again.