Abhishek Rath, BA LLB, National Law University Odisha, Cuttack
ABSTRACT
The role of the general defences enshrined in the Indian Penal Code is to exculpate criminal liability of offenders in certain special situations especially when the degree of their responsibility in committing the act is under question. The defence of intoxication especially in case of voluntary intoxication has proved to be a rather complicated problem in this regard, involving multiple conflicting concerns revolving around establishing the liability of the accused. This is largely due to the fact that the act of intoxication is voluntary and yet the effects thereof, often lead to the loss of voluntariness. Hence, it’s no surprise that even among those jurisdictions whose criminal codes are based primarily on the Indian Penal Code, it has been interpreted differently, depending on the social mores prevalent in each country. Disagreements have mainly arisen on two broad areas- (i) intoxication resulting in incapacity to develop mens rea and (ii) differences in applying the defence to offences having specific and basic intent. A comparative analysis of the historical development and current position of the defence of intoxication in India and Sri Lanka and Singapore with reference to the principles as they originally evolved in English common law, showcases the diversity of interpretations taken by courts to approach these two areas. In doing so, it also attempts to offer a critique of Indian jurisprudence on the same and suggests appropriate reforms by taking lessons from the experiences of the aforementioned countries.
