Being drunk means you can't be blamed for a crime.

Courts treat voluntary intoxication as no excuse for lacking 'knowledge' — you're judged as if you were sober, per rulings like Basdev v. State of PEPSU (1956).

This section forgives all crimes committed while intoxicated.

It only removes the intoxication-based excuse for 'knowledge'; it does not apply if the intoxicant was given without the person's knowledge or against their will.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 24

Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated

In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or 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.§

Why this exists

This provision continues the rule from Section 86 of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860. It reflects a long-standing policy that people should not be able to escape criminal responsibility simply by getting drunk or drugged voluntarily before committing an act. At the same time, it protects those who were intoxicated against their will (for example, drugged without their knowledge) by not holding them to this stricter standard.

How courts read it

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Basdev v. State of PEPSU (1956) clarified that this rule specifically fixes 'knowledge' — courts will presume a voluntarily intoxicated person knew the natural consequences of their act, even if too drunk to form specific 'intent'. Later cases refined this by distinguishing between crimes needing only general knowledge (where intoxication is no excuse) and those needing specific intent (where extreme intoxication may still be considered to see if that specific intent was actually formed). Courts have consistently held that mere drunkenness, by itself, is not a defence unless it was involuntary.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Being drunk means you can't be blamed for a crime.
Fact: Courts treat voluntary intoxication as no excuse for lacking 'knowledge' — you're judged as if you were sober, per rulings like Basdev v. State of PEPSU (1956).
Myth: This section forgives all crimes committed while intoxicated.
Fact: It only removes the intoxication-based excuse for 'knowledge'; it does not apply if the intoxicant was given without the person's knowledge or against their will.