Basdev v. State of PEPSU (1956) | Drunkenness and Murder |Section 24 BNS Explained |Intoxication Law

🏛️ Drunkenness and Criminal Liability Explained | Section 86 IPC | Basdev v. State of PEPSU (1956) Can intoxication (drunkenness) be a defence in criminal law? If a person commits murder while being drunk, can he escape liability by saying “I was intoxicated, I did not know what I was doing”? In this video, we explain a landmark Supreme Court judgment — Basdev v. State of PEPSU — in very simple and clear language. 🔹 What This Case Is About This case deals with intoxication and criminal responsibility under: Section 86 IPC Now Section 24 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 The Supreme Court clarified when intoxication can be a defence and when it cannot. 🔹 Facts of the Case Basdev was a retired military man He attended a village wedding on 12 March 1954 Alcohol was being served, and many people were drunk Basdev asked a 15–16 year old boy to move aside When the boy refused, Basdev lost his temper He took out his pistol and shot the boy, causing instant death Witnesses stated that Basdev was heavily drunk 🔹 Legal Issue Before the Court The main question before the Supreme Court was: Is this Murder (Section 302 IPC) OR Is it Culpable Homicide (Section 304 IPC) because the accused was drunk? To answer this, the Court examined Section 86 IPC / Section 24 BNS. 🔹 Law Explained: Section 86 IPC / Section 24 BNS Simple Rule: 👉 Voluntary intoxication is NOT a complete defence Meaning: If a person voluntarily consumes alcohol or drugs, Law assumes that he had the same knowledge as a sober person. ❌ Saying “I was drunk, I didn’t know” is generally not accepted. ⚠️ Important Exception Intoxication may be considered if: The substance was given without the person’s knowledge, or It was given against his will In such cases, the Court checks: Whether the accused had intent (intention) Whether he had knowledge (awareness of consequences) 🔹 Court’s Observations The Supreme Court noted that: Basdev could walk and talk properly He aimed and fired the pistol He tried to run away after the shooting Later, he realised his act and asked for forgiveness 👉 This showed that he was not completely incapable of understanding his actions. The Court also referred to English cases like: Rex v. Meade (1909) DPP v. Beard (1920) — which laid down rules on drunkenness and intent 🔹 Final Judgment The Supreme Court held that: Intoxication was proved Incapacity (total loss of understanding) was NOT proved Alcohol was taken voluntarily ✅ Therefore, Section 302 IPC (Murder) applies ❌ The offence cannot be reduced to Section 304 IPC 🔹 Key Takeaway (Golden Principle) “Drunkenness is not a free pass in criminal law.” Unless the accused proves that he was incapable of forming intent, the law will presume that he knew the natural consequences of his act. This is why Basdev v. State of PEPSU is considered the backbone judgment for Section 86 IPC / Section 24 BNS. 📚 Very Important for: Judiciary exams Law school exams IPC & BNS conceptual clarity 👍 Like | 📌 Share | 🔔 Subscribe For more landmark criminal law cases explained in simple English 🇮🇳