III Semester B.B.A, LL.B. (Hons.) Course CASE ANALYSIS OF BASDEV v. STATE OF PEPSU Submitted by: Saakshi Sharma 12BLL061 Submitted to: Mr. Renjith Thomas Special leave was granted by this court pertaining to important questions mentioned below. The appellant whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen.--In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent.P. The legal provision on which the whole case is based is Section 86 of the I. Some had settled down in their seats and some had not.C. The judgement was delivered on 17 April. ISSUES: . 1956 SCR 363 Bench: Aiyar. So. Both of them and others of the same village went to attend a wedding in another village. But Maghar Singh did not move. 1954. the young boy to step aside a little so that he may occupy a convenient seat.1956 by a division bench comprising of Justice Aiyar and Justice N Chandrasekhara. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: The appellant Basdev of the village of Harigarh is a retired military Jamadar. This evidence and circumstances were taken into account on the basis of which the Sessions Judge awarded lesser penalty to the appellant amounting to transportation of life. the appellant asked Maghar Singh. All of them went to the house of the bride to take the midday meal on the 12th March. An appeal was made to the Pepsu High court at Patiala by Basdev which proved unsuccessful. unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.In the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Equivalent citations: 1956 AIR 488. aged about 15 or 16. 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. The Sessions Court accepted the contention of the accused that he was excessively drunk as the atmosphere was merry due to the marriage. N Chandrasekhara INTRODUCTION: The case Basdev v. It states: Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated. State of Pepsu is one of the landmark cases decided on the issue of intoxication. Also there was one witness Wazir Singh Lambardar who gave the evidence that he was almost in an unconscious condition. He is charged with the murder of a young boy named Maghar Singh. The injury proved to be fatal. It basically states that if the intoxication is involuntary. Taking into regard the degree of intoxication it is analysed whether the intoxicated offender is in a position to understand the nature and consequences of his act.P. 3. The conviction and sentence are right and the appeal is dismissed.C having regard to the provisions of Section 86 of the I. Section 86 is basically enacted to take care of offences requiring a particular intent or knowledge on the part of the intoxicated offender.C. intention will be presumed seeing the facts and circumstances of the case. The important question arising in this case is whether the appellant was intoxicated to such a level that it rendered him incapable to form the intention necessary to constitute the crime or it was just that his mind was affected by the drink that he easily gave way to some violent passion. Whether the offence committed by the petitioner fell under section 302 of I.C. QUESTION OF LAW: 1. and merely establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily gave way to some violent .P. The court laid down the following three rules: a. it is voluntary only knowledge of the offence on the part of the offender will be presumed but not intention in committing it. That insanity. 2. That evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into consideration with the other facts proved in order to determine whether or not he had this intent. JUDGEMENT: 1. The Court held that the offence is not reduced from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the second part of section 304 of the I. The appellant was not granted the exception of intoxication and it was found analysing the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant was in a position to understand to under the nature and consequences of the act and his mind was not so obscured by drinking that it rendered him incapable to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime of murder. 2.1.C or section 304 of the I.P. In voluntary intoxication. c. If however. Whether the appellant can avail the exception of intoxication. 2. b. Based on this it is decided whether the offender can avail the exception of intoxication or not. is a defence to the crime charged. neither knowledge nor intention in committing the offence will be presumed. whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise. That evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved incapacity in the accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime.P. made a choice for his own seat and that is why he asked the deceased to move away from his place. It was also proved that he came to the darwaza of Natha Singh P. It is through these circumstances and facts that the Court entered into the judgement. They observed through the facts that at times the appellant staggered and was incoherent in his talk. However this presumption is rebutted in case where the person in intoxicated to such a degree that he fails to understand the nature and consequences of his act. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION: 1. he was not so much under its influence that his mind was so obscured by the drink that there was incapacity in him to form the required intention as stated. he requested the witness to be forgiven saying that it bad happened from him. It is presumed that a man intends the natural consequences of his act.passion.W. but the same evidence shows that he was also capable of moving himself independently and talking coherently as well. does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts. 3. . 2. The judges found that although the accused was under the influence of drink. In the present case the court entered into the judgement after analysing the facts and circumstances of the case. And when finally when he realised what he had done.12 by himself.