Fact of the case :

Basdev, the appellant, is a retired military Jamadar from the village of Harigarh. He is accused of killing Maghar Singh, a young child who was between the ages of 15 and 16. They went to another village to attend a wedding, along with other residents of the same village.

On March 12, 1954, they all went to the bride’s home for lunch. While some had taken a seat, others had not. The appellant requested that Maghar Singh, the young child, take a small step to make room for him to take a comfortable seat. However, Maghar Singh stayed still. With a quick draw of his pistol, the appellant shot the boy in the abdomen. The wound turned out to be lethal.

It appears that a large amount of alcohol was consumed by the group of people who had gathered at the bride’s house to celebrate the marriage. Jamadar, the appellant, drank a lot of alcohol and got very inebriated.

The learned Sessions Judge stated that “he was nearly unconscious according to one witness Wazir Singh Lambardar’s testimony” and that “he was excessively drunk.” Taking into consideration these circumstances as well as the complete lack of any motive or premeditation to kill, the Sessions Judge granted the appellant the lesser punishment of life in prison.

Issue Involved

Whether offence under Section 302 (103 of BNS) or Section 304 of IPC was committed considering Section 86 of IPC (24 of BNS)? 

The Supreme Court in the facts of the case applied the law and held that: 

The evidence indicates that the appellant was intoxicated but still had control over his actions. While he staggered (move unsteadily) at times and spoke incoherently, he was also able to move independently and speak coherently. 

After shooting the deceased, he attempted to escape but was caught a short distance away. Upon being secured, he realized what he had done and asked for forgiveness. 

To ascertain whether or not the accused had the specific intent required to constitute the crime, the evidence of intoxication, which prevents the accused from forming that intent, should be taken into account along with other established facts.

The court also opined that even when the appellant was under the influence of alcohol, his level of intoxication was not to the extent that he could not have the mental capacity to form an intention. 

Thus, he should not be granted the defence of intoxication. The appellant has not been able to prove that the act he committed was done under heavy intoxication to the extent that he was incapable of forming any intention or comprehending the consequences of his actions. Hence, he was held liable, and the appeal was dismissed

Held : “The Court thus, in the facts of the present case held that the offence shall not be reduced from murder to culpable homicide amounting to murder under second part of Section 304 of IPC (S. 105 BNS)

Therefore, evidence to prove his incapacity to understand the nature of his action is mandatory to reduce the criminality of the accused”.