-By Manas Agrawal
If A= {1} and B = {4}, then AUB = {1, 4}. Furthermore, a code is designed whose function is to identify subsets of (AUB). There are four possible outputs that this code can return. They are {1}, {4}, {1, 4} and {ϕ}. In the same way, if A= {Voluntary Intoxication} and B = {Legal Insanity}, then AUB = {Voluntary Intoxication, Legal Insanity}. Now, the courts are analogous to the code and their function is to deliver a verdict. The possible situations are: [A] {Voluntary Intoxication}, [B] {Legal Insanity}, [C] {Voluntary Intoxication, Legal Insanity} and [D] {Neither Voluntary Intoxication, nor Legal Insanity}. [A], [B], [C] is precisely the scope of this paper. By analyzing these three situations through a mathematical set analysis, I will argue that,
‘Voluntary intoxication leading to insanity should not be considered as a general defence in every circumstance’.
To provide clarity, I have divided the paper into two parts. The first part explains the position of law when voluntary intoxication leads to insanity. The second part criticizes this position of law by distinguishing between basic intent and specific intent.
[I]- Voluntary Drug Consumption Leading to Insanity- The Position of Law
At the very outset, it is imperative to understand the difference between a legal excuse and a legal justification. Both of these are defences. In excuse, the person accepts that what he has done is wrong, but he seeks to avoid the attribution of that act by taking the defence of absence of mens rea. However, in justification, the person does not accept the fact that what he has done is wrong. Thus, it can be inferred that those defences which are based on the absence of mens rea while committing an act like insanity and intoxication come in the category of excuse.
Having said that, the next step is to establish whether intoxication per se acts as a legal excuse or intoxication coupled with something else acts as a legal excuse in India. Lord Denning said that “whilst sane and sober, a person forms an intention to kill and makes preparations for it, knowing it is the wrong thing to do, and then gets himself drunk to give himself Dutch courage to do the thing, and whilst drunk carries out his intention, he cannot rely on this self-induced drunkenness as a defence to a charge of murder.” This quote perfectly captures the Indian position on intoxication. A person who enters into a voluntary state of intoxication is presumed to be cognizant of the fact that his ability to think clearly might be impaired. Now, if even after knowing this, the person consumed the intoxicant then he intended the natural consequences of his act. To summarize, if the situation [A] arises, the court (code) will return the answer, ‘Convicted’.
However, insanity acts as an exception to the above-mentioned answer. The law of insanity was laid down in the case of R v.McNaughten. The House of Lords laid down five broad principles in this case. The principle that is relevant is that the defence of insanity can only be claimed if, at the time of committing the offence, the person was insane to an extent that he had no knowledge of the nature of the act that he was committing or if he knew, he could not distinguish between right and wrong. Initially, only repeated consumption which caused permanent insanity was considered as a defence. But, later on in the case of R v. Davis, Stephen J. gave a verdict that temporary insanity due to the state of drunkenness will also act as a complete defence.
Thus, there is a distinction is between intoxication and intoxication leading to insanity. The point at which insanity is reached; the law takes into account the defence of insanity. It is neither concerned with whether that insanity was caused by habitual or one-time drinking nor whether the insanity was caused by voluntary or involuntary intoxication.
This has been clarified in DPP v. Beard. In this case, Lord Birkenhead L.C. laid down a proposition, “that insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to the crime charged.”Furthermore, this is also the position of law in India. If a person was legally insane at the time of committing the offence, then the court will not consider whether that insanity was caused by habitually excessive drinking or by any other reason. However, it has to be noted that the courts have distinguished between insanity in the true sense and mere drunkenness. In the latter case, a man might not be able to form a specific intent to commit a crime but that does not make him legally insane. Hence, the defense of insanity applies only in those situations where drunkenness leads to legal insanity. In cases where it is mere drunkenness and “the mind of the accused was so affected by drink that he more readily gave way to some violent passion” it is presumed that the person intended natural consequences of his acts.
The rationale behind this position is that in situations where insanity supervenes, then the presumption that a person who voluntarily consumes intoxicants intends the natural consequences of his acts becomes rebuttable. This is because insanity is not a natural consequence of consuming intoxicants. If the situation [B] is proved, then it does not matter how Insanity has occurred. To summarize, if the situation [B] arises, the court (code) will return the answer, ‘Acquitted’.
I agree with the rationale of insanity being an exception to voluntary intoxication. However, courts should not grant a blanket acquittal and this is precisely what the next part talks about.
[II] – Voluntary Drug Consumption Leading to Insanity -The Correct Approach
Section 86 of the IPC makes a distinction between knowledge and intention. The words, “he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated” show that the law presumes that an intoxicated man possesses the same knowledge as a sober man. However, the inclusion of knowledge and exclusion of intention in section 86 shows that the law does not presume that an intoxicated man has the same intention as that of a sober man.
Thus, after reading section 85 and section 86 together, it can be inferred that there exists a dichotomy between basic intent and specific intent when it comes to voluntary offences. This dichotomy was addressed in Basdev v. State of Pepsu. It can be inferred from this case that in offences where a basic intent is required such as assault, voluntary intoxication cannot be pleaded as an excuse as the law presumes that involuntary intoxication, the ability to form basic intention is present. However, for offences requiring specific intention such as murder, the law cannot presume that the ability to form that specific intent is present. Hence in cases that require specific intention, the intention has to be inferred from the situations and the facts of the case. However, even if the absence of specific intent is proved, the accused will not go scot-free. He will still be liable for basic intention as voluntary intoxication is not a defence to basic intention.
Taking into account this dichotomy, I argue that in cases relating to voluntary drug consumption leading to insanity, there needs to be a distinction made between those circumstances in which the principle of diminished liability should apply and those circumstances in which the accused should be acquitted. To appreciate this argument, the following illustration should be looked at.
Illustration: A person Z voluntarily consumes a drug. Now this drug affects the brain and produces temporary insanity and during this period the person commits a crime requiring specific intention. In this scenario, the judiciary should collaborate with mental health professionals to ascertain whether the state of mind, due to substance abuse that activated psychotic symptoms, became independent of acute intoxication. If the answer is in negative, then the principle of diminished responsibility should apply.
Two points must be noted regarding these two illustrations.
[A] Section 26 of IPC states that “A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.” Two main ways in which it can be proved that the person is said to have a reason to believe are: – A statement or advice by a certified mental health professional that the person should not consume that drug or the person has repeatedly consumed that drug previously and had become temporarily insane.
[B] The reason for applying the diminished liability is based on the presumption that a person intends the natural consequences of his actions if he voluntarily impairs his cognitive capacity.
It has to be noted how the argument furthered fits in with the mathematical set analysis above-mentioned. Situation [A] is at one end of the spectrum and Situation [B] is at the other end. However, the situation [C] is not extreme but it lies between [A] and [B]. Hence, the solution should also lie somewhere in between.
To summarize, if the situation [C] arises, then according to the argument advanced, the court (code) will return the answer ‘Convicted with diminished responsibility’. This is the most equitable solution as it is based on the harmonious conjunction of the two extremes.
Concluding Remarks
I have put forth three points in this paper. Firstly, if the situation [A] arises, then convict. Secondly, if the situation [B] arises, then acquit. Thirdly, if Insanity caused by voluntary intoxication arises; then the courts should import the rationale of section 86 and impose conviction with diminished responsibility.
[The author is a 2nd year B.A. LLB. (Hons) student at National Law School of India University, Bangalore.]