Read Time: 09 minutes
Court has opined that for applying Section 86 IPC, twin conditions have to be satisfied, the first that the accused was administered a thing which intoxicated him without his knowledge or against his will and secondly, the intoxication has to be of the level which incapacitated him of knowing the nature of the act committed or likely to be committed by him
The Supreme Court has on November 21, 2023 said insanity, due to drunkenness or otherwise, is a defense in a crime but it is mandatory to prove by evidence incapacity to understand the nature of action to reduce the criminality of the accused.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal has accordingly upheld the Allahabad High Court's order confirming conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded against one Nanhe.
Appellant Nanhe contended before the top court that at the time of incident on May 30, 2007, he was heavily intoxicated and as such was not in a position to even know what he was doing. His case would therefore, fall under Part II of Section 304 and not under Section 302 IPC, his counsel said.
According to the FIR, on the fateful date, Mahendra and Nanhe were quarrelling with each other. After intervention of others, Nanhe left the place. But barely after walking 15 to 20 steps from the spot, he turned around and fired a shot from a country made pistol, which pierced through the neck of deceased Saddam Hussain and hit at Mahendra.
Relying on the statements of witnesses, the bench said, "It stands duly established that the appellant had fired the shot in the state of intoxication which resulted in the killing of Saddam Hussain but there is no evidence to prove that on account of the intoxication, he was incapacitated to know and understand his actions."
Court has also said it was not the case of the appellant that he was administered intoxication without his knowledge or against his will, so the provision of Section 86 IPC would not be applicable and he would not be entitled to reduction of sentence from 302 IPC to one falling under Part-II of Section 304 IPC.
"It may be true that the deceased may have been killed accidently by the appellant in the state of intoxication but there is no iota of evidence to establish that due to intoxication he was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that the act which he was doing or likely to do was so dangerous so as to cause death of any person," the bench said.
Supreme Court has cited Section 301 of the IPC related to culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended, which is based up on the ‘Doctrine of Transfer of Malice or Transmigration of Motive’. It provides that where there is ‘mens rea’ of committing an offence, it can be transferred to another.
"To illustrate the said doctrine, an example could be given of a person who had intention to kill a person but by mistake kills another person, then he would still be held guilty of committing murder even in the absence of intention to kill that particular person. In simpler words, if a person has an intention to commit an offence or cause a death of any person but kills one whose death he never intended to cause, he would still be guilty of causing death," it has said.
Referring to Section 86 of the IPC, the bench said the said provision absolves the accused of committing an offence by reason of intoxication and incapability of knowing the nature of his act.
However, for applying the provision, the court said twin conditions have to be satisfied, the first that the accused was administered a thing which intoxicated him without his knowledge or against his will ans secondly, the intoxication has to be of the level which incapacitated him of knowing the nature of the act committed or likely to be committed by him.
The court also summed up the law in this regard:
(i) The insanity, whether due to drunkenness or otherwise is a defence in a crime;
(ii) The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming any opinion or intention ought to be considered with the surrounding facts and circumstances so as to come to the conclusion whether or not he had intention to do the said act; and
(iii) The drunkenness of the accused must be sufficient to render him incapacitated to form any intention to commit the crime.
However, the court has granted the appellant liberty to apply for remission in accordance with remission policy of the State in vogue, which would be considered on its own merit most expeditiously.
Case Title: Nanhe vs. State of UP
Please Login or Register
