Getting drunk voluntarily and then committing a crime is excused under this section.

Section 85 only protects people who were intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will; voluntary intoxication is treated differently under Section 86 and is usually not a full defense.

Being tipsy or having reduced judgment is enough to claim this defense.

Courts require the person to be so intoxicated that they were incapable of understanding the nature of the act or that it was wrong — mere reduced inhibition or bad judgment is not sufficient.

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 85

repealed

Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will

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.§

Why this exists

The Indian Penal Code, drafted in the 1860s under British colonial administration, built this section as a narrow companion to Section 84 (unsoundness of mind). Lawmakers recognized that intoxication can destroy a person's mental capacity just like insanity can, but they were wary of letting people escape punishment simply by getting drunk on purpose and then blaming the bottle. So the defense was deliberately limited to situations where the person had no real choice in becoming intoxicated — for example, if someone spiked their drink without telling them, or forced an intoxicant on them.

How courts read it

Indian courts, most notably in Basdev v. State of PEPSU (1956), have drawn a sharp line between Section 85 (involuntary intoxication) and voluntary drunkenness, which is governed separately under Section 86. Courts have held that voluntary intoxication is generally no excuse and is judged as if the person had full knowledge of their actions, while Section 85's protection is reserved for the rare cases of truly involuntary intoxication — such as being drugged without consent. Judges have also stressed that the accused must prove near-total incapacity to understand the nature or wrongness of the act, not mere reduced judgment or impaired self-control.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Getting drunk voluntarily and then committing a crime is excused under this section.
Fact: Section 85 only protects people who were intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will; voluntary intoxication is treated differently under Section 86 and is usually not a full defense.
Myth: Being tipsy or having reduced judgment is enough to claim this defense.
Fact: Courts require the person to be so intoxicated that they were incapable of understanding the nature of the act or that it was wrong — mere reduced inhibition or bad judgment is not sufficient.