Intoxication can't be used as defence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that an accused cannot use intoxication as a defence to escape criminal charges.

A division bench of Justice KS Radhakrishnan and Justice Vikramajit Sen observed: “At times, it [intoxication] can be considered a mitigating circumstance if the accused is not a habitual drinker; otherwise, it has to be considered an aggravating circumstance.”

The SC was hearing an appeal filed by Bhagwan Dange, who was convicted by a sessions court, whose order was upheld by the Bombay high court. Bhagwan and his father Tukaram were found guilty. However, pending appeal before SC, Tukaram passed away.

According to prosecutor Shankar Chillarge, on October 18, 1998, the Danges returned home in a drunken state at 7pm. They demanded Rs 200-300 from Bhagwan’s wife. When she refused, the duo beat her up. Tukaram poured kerosene on her and Bhagwan then set her ablaze.

She rolled on the floor and doused the fire. However, by that time she had suffered 80% burn injuries. Her neighbours then rushed her to the Public Health Centre, Mayani. She was then referred to the Civil Hospital, Satara.

Before succumbing to her injuries, she gave two dying declarations naming the Danges.

Ranjan Mukherjee, defence counsel, argued that since Bhagwan was under the influence of liquor, he had no intention to kill his wife and, therefore, at best, he could be tried for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Under this charge, an accused is punishable up to 10 years.

Rejecting the argument, the SC said: “We find it difficult to accept this contention. Assuming that the accused was fully drunk, he was fully conscious of the fact that if kerosene is poured and a match-stick lit and put on the body, a person might die due to burns. A fully drunk person is also sometimes aware of the consequences of his action. It cannot, therefore, be said that since the accused was fully drunk and under the influence of liquor, he had no intention to cause death of the deceased wife.”

The defence also argued that the court could not rely on the two dying declarations as there were contradictions therein. However, the judged dismissed this saying that the sessions court and the Bombay high court had scrutinised the same. “Hence, as a rule of prudence, there is no requirement as to corroboration of dying declaration before it is acted upon,” observed SC.

The judges noted that dying declaration is based on the maxim “Nemo moriturus praesumitur mentire”, i.e., a man will not meet his maker with a lie in his mouth. “Dying declaration is a statement made by a dying person as to the injuries culminated in his death or the circumstances under which the injuries were inflicted,” added the apex court.