HomeBasdev v. State of Pepsu (1956 AIR SC 488)


The appellant had attended a wedding where he consumed an excessive amount of alcohol. In a state of intoxication, he asked one boy to get up from the chair so that he could sit on it. The boy refused to do so. On such refusal, the appellant pulled a gun from his pocket and shot at the boy’s abdomen. The boy died as  a result of the shot.


Whether the appellant was so intoxicated that he did not possess the capacity to understand his acts?


Section 86 IPC, Section 300 IPC, Section 302 IPC.


The court observed that under section 86 IPC, a person will be presumed to have the same knowledge of an act that he would have when he was not intoxicated for an offence that requires knowledge or intention. However, the court points out that to ascertain intention, one needs to find out whether the person was so intoxicated that forming intention would be impossible or whether he or she was not so drunk to not understand the consequences of what he or she was doing.


It was found that the appellant was not very drunk that he could not understand what he was doing and hence the required intention will be considered to be present. Thus, the appellant was guilty for murder.

68 Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Rd, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Follow us:

Copyright © Legal Maxim 2020

error: Content is protected !!