The Supreme Court noted that to invoke the general exception under Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it is necessary to demonstrate that the accused, due to intoxication, was incapacitated and unable to comprehend the nature of their actions. This observation was made in the context of dismissing an appeal filed by an accused convicted in a murder case.

The judicial panel, consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal, noted, "While it might be accurate that the accused, under the influence of intoxication, unintentionally caused the death of the deceased, there is no shred of evidence indicating that the intoxication rendered him incapable of understanding the nature of his actions or that the act he was engaged in or likely to engage in was so perilous as to result in the death of any person."

The individual appealing, referred to as the Appellant, had been found guilty of murder and was handed a life imprisonment sentence. In the appeal, the Appellant asserted that there was no intention to cause the death of the deceased and that the fatality was an unintended consequence. Additionally, the Appellant contended that at the time of the incident, significant intoxication impaired his ability to comprehend his actions or be aware of his conduct.

The court posed the question: "Whether the offense in question should be downgraded to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling under the second part of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This consideration arises from the appellant's claim that he did not have the intent to kill the deceased; instead, he fired with the intention of settling a dispute with Mahendra, with whom he had engaged in a heated argument."

The court observed that according to the Doctrine of Transfer of Malice, if an individual intends to commit a crime and, in the process, causes the death of another person who was not the intended target, they are still deemed guilty of murder. The bench noted that in such cases, the malice or intent to cause harm is transferred from the originally intended victim to the unintended victim.

The bench observed that there is an exception under Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code, stating that if a person is so intoxicated that they are unable to comprehend the nature of their actions, they cannot be held criminally liable. However, this exception applies only if the intoxication was involuntary or administered without the person's knowledge. The bench emphasized the two conditions that must be satisfied for the application of Section 86 IPC. The bench highlighted that in the application of the aforementioned provision, two essential conditions must be met. Firstly, it must be established that the accused was subjected to a substance that caused intoxication without his knowledge or against his will. Secondly, the level of intoxication must be significant enough to render the accused incapable of understanding the nature of the act committed or likely to be committed by him.

The bench acknowledged that there was evidence indicating the appellant's intoxication at the time of the incident. However, it was emphasized that there was a lack of evidence to establish that the level of intoxication reached a point where he was unable to comprehend his actions. Notably, the appellant's ability to walk properly and the fact that he moved away from the site of the dispute before returning to discharge a shot—suggesting mental alertness—was underscored. Consequently, the bench concluded that the provisions of Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable in this case. Therefore, the appellant would not be entitled to a reduction of the murder charge under Section 302 IPC to an offense falling under Part II of Section 304 IPC.

As a result of the considerations outlined, the court dismissed the appeal.

Case: Nanhe v State Of UP,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2791 OF 2023.

Read/Download Order