Drunkenness can't be defence unless incapacity to comprehend nature of act proved: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said insanity, due to drunkenness or otherwise, can't be taken as a defence in a crime unless it is proved that there was incapacity to understand the nature of action on the part of the accused.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal dismissed an appeal by a man against the Allahabad High Court's order confirming conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him for shooting a person.

The court rejected his contention 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.

The prosecution claimed Mahendra and Nanhe were quarrelling with each other. After intervention of others, accused Nanhe left the place. But after walking 15 to 20 steps from the spot, he turned around and fired a shot from a country-made pistol, which hit another person Saddam Hussain, resulting in his death.

The bench said Section 86 of the IPC absolved the accused of committing an offence by reason of intoxication and incapability of knowing the nature of his act.

To apply the provision, the court said, twin conditions have to be satisfied—first, that the accused was administered a thing which intoxicated him without his knowledge or against his will and second, the intoxication has to be of the level which incapacitated him to an extent that he could not know the nature of the act committed or likely to be committed by him.

In such cases, the bench said, among other factors, "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."

In the instant case, the bench said it stood 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 incapable of knowing and understanding his actions.

The court also relied upon Section 301 of the IPC which is related to culpable homicide by causing death of person other than the person whose death was intended. The provision is based up on the ‘doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of motive’. It provided 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," the bench said.