Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 86
repealedOffence 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
The provision reflects a policy choice: people who choose to drink or take drugs should not be able to use their self-induced state as a shield against criminal responsibility for serious offences requiring specific intent (like murder or theft). At the same time, the law recognizes that someone who was involuntarily drugged — say, by having their drink spiked — has not truly chosen to lose control, so fairness demands an exception for them. This distinction between voluntary and involuntary intoxication has deep roots in English common law, which the drafters of the IPC (led by Macaulay) adapted for India in 1860.
How courts read it
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have consistently held that Section 86 does not by itself create an offence or a defence — it works alongside provisions like Section 300 (murder) to decide whether the specific intent required was present. Courts have clarified that voluntary drunkenness, however severe, will not reduce liability for offences needing specific intent; the accused is presumed to have had the knowledge a sober person would have. However, courts have also examined ownership of the choice to drink — for instance, whether intoxication was so severe as to negate even 'knowledge' (as opposed to specific 'intent') has led to some nuanced distinctions in cases interpreting analogous English law principles, though Indian courts apply Section 86 with limited scope for such distinctions since the section itself deems knowledge present regardless.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Being drunk automatically excuses you from serious crimes.
Fact: Section 86 says the opposite: voluntary intoxication does not excuse crimes requiring specific intent or knowledge — you are judged as if sober. - Myth: Any kind of intoxication, forced or chosen, gets the same legal treatment.
Fact: The law distinguishes: only involuntary intoxication (without your knowledge or against your will) can change how you are judged; voluntary intoxication does not.