Correct option is C
The correct answer is (c) Intoxication. The case of Director Public Prosecution v. Beard is a landmark judgment on the defense of intoxication. In this case, the legal principles regarding the impact of intoxication on criminal liability were elaborated. The court held that if a person commits a crime while being voluntarily intoxicated, the intoxication does not excuse the crime. However, if the intoxication is such that it prevents the person from forming the specific intent required for the crime, it may be considered in determining the liability.
Explanation:
· Intoxication Defence: The primary focus of the case was to examine whether voluntary intoxication can serve as a defense in criminal law.
· The Court distinguished between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, where voluntary intoxication does not absolve the accused of criminal responsibility.
· Specific Intent: The Court highlighted that intoxication might be relevant in crimes requiring specific intent. If intoxication prevents the formation of such intent, it could affect the liability.
Information Booster:
· Voluntary Intoxication: Generally, it does not serve as a defense in criminal cases, as individuals are expected to know the consequences of their actions while intoxicated.
· Involuntary Intoxication: Can be a defense if the intoxication was without the individual's knowledge or against their will and led to the incapacity to form the required criminal intent.
Additional Information:
· Unsoundness of Mind: Refers to mental incapacity where an individual is unable to understand the nature of their actions. It can serve as a defense under Section 84 of the IPC, indicating lack of mens rea due to mental illness.
· Accident: Under Section 80 of the IPC, an act done by accident or misfortune without criminal intent and with lawful means is not considered an offense.
· Intoxication (Section 85 and 86, IPC): Section 85 deals with involuntary intoxication as a defense, while Section 86 addresses voluntary intoxication and its impact on crimes requiring specific intent.
· Infancy: As per Sections 82 and 83 of the IPC, children under the age of seven are considered incapable of committing an offense (doli incapax), and those between seven and twelve are presumed incapable unless proven otherwise.
