Supreme Court Rejects Defence Of Intoxication In Murder Case, Says Accused Walking Properly & Returning To Shoot Indicated Alert Mental State
The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a convict for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after carefully considering the impact of intoxication on him at the time of the incident. The Court noted that despite being heavily intoxicated, the appellant was able to walk properly and even moved away 15-20 steps from the quarrel scene before returning...
The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a convict for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after carefully considering the impact of intoxication on him at the time of the incident. The Court noted that despite being heavily intoxicated, the appellant was able to walk properly and even moved away 15-20 steps from the quarrel scene before returning to fire the fatal shot. The court concluded that there was no evidence indicating the appellant’s incapacity to understand the consequences of his actions due to intoxication.
The Court observed “It may be true that the deceased may have been killed accidentally 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. Thus, in the absence of such evidence, coupled with the fact that it is not the case of the appellant that he was administered intoxication without his knowledge or against his will, 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.”
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal was hearing an appeal against the Allahabad HC judgment which had upheld the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC in a murder case.
In the present case, the informant Mohd. Ali stated that on May 30, 2007, he went to a shop with his son Saddam Hussain(deceased). At the time, Mahendra and Nanhe(appellant) were quarrelling. The appellant then fired a shot that pierced the neck of his son who died, while Mahendra sustained injuries. The appellant was charged under Section 304, 308 IPC, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. On May 14, 2010, the trial court found him guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court in 2019, affirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Court began by referring to Section 86 of the IPC, which deals with offenses committed by a person under the influence of intoxication.
The Court highlighted two essential conditions for the application of Section 86 IPC-
- Firstly, the accused must have been intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will, and;
- Secondly, the level of intoxication should be such that it incapacitates them from understanding the nature of the act committed or likely to be committed.
The Court cited the landmark case of Basdev v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488, emphasizing that the accused must not only be intoxicated but also at a level that makes them incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. The Court had observed “Where no evidence was led to show that the accused was incapacitated to form requisite intention due to the influence of the drink, the killing of a person would be an offence of murder. Therefore, evidence to prove his incapacity to understand the nature of his action is mandatory to reduce the criminality of the accused.”
The court also referenced The King v. Meade (1909) 1 K.B. 895 , stating that insanity resulting from drunkenness is a valid defense. The Court had summed up the principles as under-
- The insanity, whether due to drunkenness or otherwise is a defense in a crime
- 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 conclude whether or not he had intention to do the said act
- The drunkenness of the accused must be sufficient to render him incapacitated to form any intention to commit the crime
In the case at hand, witnesses testified that Nanhe was intoxicated at the time of the incident. However, the judgment highlighted that there was no proof that Nanhe was incapacitated by intoxication to the extent of not understanding the nature of his act. As a result, the court found no merit in applying Section 86 IPC and affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Therefore, the court upheld the order of the High Court in confirming the conviction and punishing the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
Advocate Adolph Mathew appeared for the appellant as amicus curiae.
Also from the judgment- Person Guilty Of Murder Even When He Mistakenly Kills Another Person : Supreme Court Applies 'Doctrine Of Transfer Of Malice'
Case title: Nanhe v. State of UP
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2791 OF 2023