◆Introduction:-The general principal of law is that a person is presumed to know the nature and consequence of his act and is, therefore held responsible for it. However there are certain exceptions to this rule, wherein a person may be excused of crime sometimes a person may be excused from criminal liability by virtue of being head of the sovereign state, or being representative of such state etc. However other persons may also be immune from the consequences of punishment by reason of the absence of the requisite mens rea necessary for the particular offence this is based on the principle of the Latin Maxim "actus non facit renum nisi mens sit rea" i.e., the act itself doesn't make a man guilty unless his intentions are so.
The framers of the Penal Code decided to put all cases of exceptions innone chapter of the Code under chapter vi, commencing from section 76 -106.
The framers of the Penal Code decided to put all cases of exceptions innone chapter of the Code under chapter vi, commencing from section 76 -106.
◆ Minority and intoxication as a ground of defence:-
Section 82,83 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the provisions of Defence relating to minority and Sec.85&86 provides the ground of immunity from the criminal liability of a person who has accused of an offence under intoxication. Both of these provisions has been discussed below:-
◆ Section 82 and 83 Doli incapax or infacy:-
According to the Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code "nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age."
Again according to the section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, "Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above 7 years of age and under 12. Who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion."
In criminal law of minor or Juvenile delinquents are placed in a privileged position as they are immune from criminal liability under certain circumstances. For instance a child below the age of 7 years is totally immune from criminal liability and between the age of 8 to 12 years is a subject to proof of mens rea. Further juvenile delinquents are tried in Juvenile Courts, which are specially designed for the trial of juvenile delinquents.
The present heading deals with the defence of infancy, which provides a child, exemption from criminal liability. An infant is below the age of legal maturity that is 18 years. Section 82 and 83 of the Code of 1860 exempt the children from criminal liability.
Section 82 of the code completely makes an infant below 7 years of age immune from criminal liability. Since a child below this age is considered Doli incapax in law. That is to say, a child under such as cannot from the necessary intention to constitute a crime, since he possesses no adequate discretion or understanding at this age for his deeds.
In the case of Mars vs.Loader, the defendant got a child while stealing a piece of wood from his premises and give into custody. Since the child was under the age of responsibility that is 7 years, he was discharged.
As per section 83 child above the age of 7 years and below the age of 12 years is also immune from the criminal liability subjected to the condition that such child does not have enough maturity of mind. Such child is also regarded as Doli incapax that is incapable of committing of offence. However the presentation should be proved by producing evidence. In India child between 7 to 12 years of age is qualified to avail the defence of doli incapax if it is proved that he has not attend sufficient maturity of understanding to comprehend that nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion.
◆ Section 82 and 83 Doli incapax or infacy:-
According to the Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code "nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age."
Again according to the section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, "Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above 7 years of age and under 12. Who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion."
In criminal law of minor or Juvenile delinquents are placed in a privileged position as they are immune from criminal liability under certain circumstances. For instance a child below the age of 7 years is totally immune from criminal liability and between the age of 8 to 12 years is a subject to proof of mens rea. Further juvenile delinquents are tried in Juvenile Courts, which are specially designed for the trial of juvenile delinquents.
The present heading deals with the defence of infancy, which provides a child, exemption from criminal liability. An infant is below the age of legal maturity that is 18 years. Section 82 and 83 of the Code of 1860 exempt the children from criminal liability.
Section 82 of the code completely makes an infant below 7 years of age immune from criminal liability. Since a child below this age is considered Doli incapax in law. That is to say, a child under such as cannot from the necessary intention to constitute a crime, since he possesses no adequate discretion or understanding at this age for his deeds.
In the case of Mars vs.Loader, the defendant got a child while stealing a piece of wood from his premises and give into custody. Since the child was under the age of responsibility that is 7 years, he was discharged.
As per section 83 child above the age of 7 years and below the age of 12 years is also immune from the criminal liability subjected to the condition that such child does not have enough maturity of mind. Such child is also regarded as Doli incapax that is incapable of committing of offence. However the presentation should be proved by producing evidence. In India child between 7 to 12 years of age is qualified to avail the defence of doli incapax if it is proved that he has not attend sufficient maturity of understanding to comprehend that nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion.
◆Ingredients:- to invoke the defence under section 83 the following conditions are to be satisfied:
1. An act done by a child above 7 years but under 12 years of age,
2. The child must not have attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequence of his conduct,
3. Incapacity must exist at the time of commission of the act.
In the case of Hiralal-Mallick-Versus-State-of-Bihar-1977 the accuse was a child of 12 years old, threatened the diseased that he would cut him to pieces. Accordingly the accused killed him with knife. In the prosecution the difference was pleaded under section 83 of the code. The trial court convicted the child and held that the boy was not entitled to get the immunity under section 83 because his words, gestures, assault, keeping a knife in his pocket, stabbing the deceased etc. showed that the child had attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the wrongful act and also the consequence of his act. The supreme court upheld the conviction by the lower court and on the ground that accused child have sufficient maturity to understand the nature and when consequences of the act, while stabbing the deceased.
1. An act done by a child above 7 years but under 12 years of age,
2. The child must not have attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequence of his conduct,
3. Incapacity must exist at the time of commission of the act.
In the case of Hiralal-Mallick-Versus-State-of-Bihar-1977 the accuse was a child of 12 years old, threatened the diseased that he would cut him to pieces. Accordingly the accused killed him with knife. In the prosecution the difference was pleaded under section 83 of the code. The trial court convicted the child and held that the boy was not entitled to get the immunity under section 83 because his words, gestures, assault, keeping a knife in his pocket, stabbing the deceased etc. showed that the child had attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the wrongful act and also the consequence of his act. The supreme court upheld the conviction by the lower court and on the ground that accused child have sufficient maturity to understand the nature and when consequences of the act, while stabbing the deceased.
◆Intixication:- Intoxication is also a ground of general defence of criminal liability. Section 85 and 86 of Indian penal code, 1860 deals with the general defence relating to the intoxication which runs as follows-
Section 85 "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will."
Section 85 "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will."
Section 86, In case where an act done is not an offense unless done with a particular knowledge of intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication Shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Intoxication is the result of consuming drinks or drugs. Intoxicated person behave abnormally. Such persons may not have the rational thinking and do not know the nature of the acts, they are doing and do not know their effects and legal consequences. Therefore he may be axcused from criminal liability. However in order to avoid this defence, the burden of proof of lack of capacity lies upon the accused person.
Section 85 and 86 of the Indian penal code 1860 deals with the law relating to the intoxication thus,
Drunkenness is the spaces of Madness for which the man is to blame drunkenness is of two kinds namely:
1. voluntary intoxication
2. involuntary intoxication
Voluntary drunkenness is no defence for the commission of a crime. Intoxication is a voluntary is basis of madness, which is in party's power to abstain from and he must answer for it. But where drunkenness is involuntary, as when a man is forced to drink or when he is made drunk through stratagem or the fraud of others, or through ignorence or when any intoxicant is administered to him without his knowledge or against his will, his criminal act will be judged with reference to his mental condition at the time the act was committed. Such a case is exactly on the same footing as unsoundness of mind.
◆ Ingredients:- To invoke the defence of involuntary intoxication under section 85 the following conditions are to be satisfied-
1. Incapable of knowing the nature of the act; or
2. That he was doing other contrary to the law;
3 That the thing which intoxicated him was given to him without his knowledge or against his will.
According to Section 85 of the Indian penal code 1860 voluntary intoxication is no excuse for the commission of a crime and hence, it cannot be pleaded as a defence. But, involuntary intoxication can be excused under certain circumstances and hence, it can be pleaded as a defence under section 85 of the IPC as it affords the same protection to an accused as section 84 to a person of unsound mind.
Intoxication is the result of consuming drinks or drugs. Intoxicated person behave abnormally. Such persons may not have the rational thinking and do not know the nature of the acts, they are doing and do not know their effects and legal consequences. Therefore he may be axcused from criminal liability. However in order to avoid this defence, the burden of proof of lack of capacity lies upon the accused person.
Section 85 and 86 of the Indian penal code 1860 deals with the law relating to the intoxication thus,
Drunkenness is the spaces of Madness for which the man is to blame drunkenness is of two kinds namely:
1. voluntary intoxication
2. involuntary intoxication
Voluntary drunkenness is no defence for the commission of a crime. Intoxication is a voluntary is basis of madness, which is in party's power to abstain from and he must answer for it. But where drunkenness is involuntary, as when a man is forced to drink or when he is made drunk through stratagem or the fraud of others, or through ignorence or when any intoxicant is administered to him without his knowledge or against his will, his criminal act will be judged with reference to his mental condition at the time the act was committed. Such a case is exactly on the same footing as unsoundness of mind.
◆ Ingredients:- To invoke the defence of involuntary intoxication under section 85 the following conditions are to be satisfied-
1. Incapable of knowing the nature of the act; or
2. That he was doing other contrary to the law;
3 That the thing which intoxicated him was given to him without his knowledge or against his will.
According to Section 85 of the Indian penal code 1860 voluntary intoxication is no excuse for the commission of a crime and hence, it cannot be pleaded as a defence. But, involuntary intoxication can be excused under certain circumstances and hence, it can be pleaded as a defence under section 85 of the IPC as it affords the same protection to an accused as section 84 to a person of unsound mind.
The relevant leading English case on this point is:
Director of public prosecutions v. Beard-1920-a-c-479
Fact: Beard was a night watchman. He caught a girl of 13 years old to have carnal knowledge (to rape her). The girl cried and tried to escape. He put a cloth gag in her mouth to prevent cries; and placed his hand over her mouth and thumb on her throat. The girl died by suffocation. He pleaded the defence of intoxication, as he was in drunken state at the time of committing the offence the trial court convicted him for murder. But the court of appeal reduced the sentence to culpable homicide. However the House of Lords resorted the conviction for murder and laid down the following points on the "law of intoxication"-
1. The insanity produced by drunkenness is the defence to the crime charged.
2. The evidence of drunkenness is taken into consideration to determine, whether the accused had an intent to commit the offence.
3. Mere establishment of the fact that a man's mind was so affected by drink affords no protection.
Excessive drunkenness is not a defence. The law of drunkenness has been very nicely summarised in the case of-
Basdev vs. state of pepsu AIR1956 SC488,
The accused in the instant case was a retired Military officer. He was charged with murder of a 15 years old boy. The accused fired at the boy in a marriage for refusing to step aside a little so that he might occupy a convenient seat. It was found that he was drunk but was not so much under it influence. The trial quote sentenced him for life imprisonment and the same was upheld by the Pepsu Hight court. Than, the appellant went to the Supreme Court by Special Leave of Appeal. The Supreme Court following the decision in Beard's case held that the offence was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Section 304 of I.P.C.
While rejecting the plea of the accused to allow him the benefit of section 86 and reduce the charge from Murder to culpable homicide the supreme court lay down the following rules for guidance viz.,
1. In the absece of understanding of the nature and consequences of an act, weather produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to the crime charged.
2. The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific interest essential to constitute the crime, should be taken into consideration with other proved facts in order to determine whether or not he had this intent;
3. The evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, and merely establishing that his mind was effected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion does not rebut the presumption of his acts.
Director of public prosecutions v. Beard-1920-a-c-479
Fact: Beard was a night watchman. He caught a girl of 13 years old to have carnal knowledge (to rape her). The girl cried and tried to escape. He put a cloth gag in her mouth to prevent cries; and placed his hand over her mouth and thumb on her throat. The girl died by suffocation. He pleaded the defence of intoxication, as he was in drunken state at the time of committing the offence the trial court convicted him for murder. But the court of appeal reduced the sentence to culpable homicide. However the House of Lords resorted the conviction for murder and laid down the following points on the "law of intoxication"-
1. The insanity produced by drunkenness is the defence to the crime charged.
2. The evidence of drunkenness is taken into consideration to determine, whether the accused had an intent to commit the offence.
3. Mere establishment of the fact that a man's mind was so affected by drink affords no protection.
Excessive drunkenness is not a defence. The law of drunkenness has been very nicely summarised in the case of-
Basdev vs. state of pepsu AIR1956 SC488,
The accused in the instant case was a retired Military officer. He was charged with murder of a 15 years old boy. The accused fired at the boy in a marriage for refusing to step aside a little so that he might occupy a convenient seat. It was found that he was drunk but was not so much under it influence. The trial quote sentenced him for life imprisonment and the same was upheld by the Pepsu Hight court. Than, the appellant went to the Supreme Court by Special Leave of Appeal. The Supreme Court following the decision in Beard's case held that the offence was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Section 304 of I.P.C.
While rejecting the plea of the accused to allow him the benefit of section 86 and reduce the charge from Murder to culpable homicide the supreme court lay down the following rules for guidance viz.,
1. In the absece of understanding of the nature and consequences of an act, weather produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to the crime charged.
2. The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific interest essential to constitute the crime, should be taken into consideration with other proved facts in order to determine whether or not he had this intent;
3. The evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime, and merely establishing that his mind was effected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion does not rebut the presumption of his acts.
◆Conclusion:
From the above discussion at conclusion we can say that in general if a person had committed an offence then he is subjected to punishment as per criminal law however there are some exception whether the culpable accused will completely immune from criminal liability, as discussed Supra minority and intoxication are of few example as well as grounds.
From the above discussion at conclusion we can say that in general if a person had committed an offence then he is subjected to punishment as per criminal law however there are some exception whether the culpable accused will completely immune from criminal liability, as discussed Supra minority and intoxication are of few example as well as grounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment