Keyur Tripathi

Several times intoxication due to drinking alcohol or taking other substances to cause the person to lose the judgment of right or wrong. In early law, however, this was no defence for criminal responsibility.  In recent times this has become a valid defence but only if the intoxication was involuntary. Section 85 says thus - 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 actor 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. This means that to claim immunity under this section, the accused must prove the existence of following conditions - 1.      He was intoxicated. 2.      Because of intoxication, he was rendered incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what is was doing was wrong or contrary to law. 3.      The thing that intoxic

Section 84 - Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by the reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the actor that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Thus, a person claiming immunity under this section must prove the existence of the following conditions - 1.      He was of unsound mind - Unsound Mind is not defined in IPC. As per Stephen, it is equivalent to insanity, which is a state of mind where the functions of feeling, knowing, emotion, and willing are performed in an abnormal manner. The term Unsoundness of mind is quite wide and includes all varieties of want of capacity whether temporary or permanent or because of illness or birth defect. However, mere unsoundness of mind is not a sufficient ground. It must be accompanied by the rest of the conditions. 2.      Such incapacity must exist at the time of the act - A person may become temporarily out of mind or insane for example due to