Facts of the Case
On 12 March 1954, Basdev, a retired army Jamadar from Harigarh, attended a wedding in a nearby village. Guests at the celebration consumed large quantities of alcohol. During the midday meal at the bride’s residence, a heavily intoxicated Basdev insisted that a 15–16-year-old boy, Maghar Singh, give up his seat for him. When the boy refused, Basdev pulled out a pistol and shot him in the abdomen, killing him instantly.
Eyewitnesses stated that Basdev was very drunk—almost unconscious—but there was no prior enmity or motive between him and the deceased.
- The Sessions Court convicted him of murder under Section 302 IPC but, considering his drunkenness and absence of motive, sentenced him to life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.
- The PEPSU High Court upheld this conviction.
- Basdev then approached the Supreme Court via special leave, focusing on whether his intoxication could reduce the charge from murder (Section 302) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304).
Legal Issue
The main issue before the Court was:
Does voluntary intoxication, under Section 86 IPC, negate the intention required for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, thereby justifying a reduction of the charge to Section 304 IPC?
Arguments Presented
- For the Appellant (Basdev):
- He claimed that his intoxication was so extreme that he could not form the specific intent to kill.
- The shooting was not deliberate but the result of impaired judgment due to drunkenness.
- Hence, the case should fall under Section 304 IPC, not Section 302.
- For the Respondent (State of PEPSU):
- Since Basdev had voluntarily consumed alcohol, he was still responsible for his actions.
- His conduct—pulling out a pistol, aiming at the victim, and firing—proved he retained sufficient awareness and intent.
- Therefore, the act amounted to murder under Section 302 IPC.
Court’s Reasoning
The judgment, delivered on 17 April 1956 by Justices N.H. Bhagwati and S.R. Das, analyzed Section 86 IPC, which presumes that an intoxicated person has the same knowledge as if sober, though intent must be determined from surrounding circumstances.
The Court emphasized:
- Basdev was not so drunk as to lose his ability to think or act.
- He could walk unaided, choose a seat, take out his pistol, fire at a vital organ, and later express regret—showing mental awareness.
- The use of a firearm aimed at the abdomen clearly implied an intention to cause death or grievous harm.
The Court also relied on English precedents like DPP v. Beard (1920), which laid down that:
- Total intoxication amounting to insanity can be a complete defense.
- Intoxication that prevents formation of specific intent must be considered.
- Mere drunken recklessness does not absolve liability.
Since Basdev’s condition did not reach the level of incapacity, the normal presumption of intent from the act’s natural consequences applied.
Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, along with the life sentence.
Significance
This ruling reinforced the principle that voluntary intoxication is not a valid shield against criminal liability for murder. Unless drunkenness completely paralyzes a person’s ability to form intent, the law assumes he possesses the same mental state as a sober person. The decision remains a cornerstone precedent in Indian criminal law on the interplay between intoxication and mens rea.