The Supreme Court has rejected a man’s defence that he was too drunk to intend to kill his wife.
In a judgment by a Bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah on Friday, the court said intoxication was not a defence to a criminal charge.
The court said defence of drunkenness was at the most a mitigating factor. But for that, the level of inebriation should be such that it leaves the accused incapable of having a “particular intention” to commit the crime. Intoxication, as such, is not a defence to a criminal charge.
At times, it can be considered to be a mitigating circumstance if the accused is not a habitual drinker, otherwise, it has to be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
The onus of proving that he was drunk to the extent of insensibility lies on the accused alone.
“The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into account with the other facts proved to determine whether or not he had the intention,” Justice Shah wrote in the judgment.
“Merely establishing that the accused’s mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts,” the apex court said.
The judgment came on an appeal filed by Suraj Jagannath Jadhav from Maharashtra who set ablaze his pregnant wife and later claimed that he did so in a fit of drunkenness.
He said he had tried to pour water on her to douse the fire. But the court found that he tried to save her only after she cried out and attempted to run out of the room.
.png?w=600)
