What is the core rule from Section 86 IPC in Basdev?

Courts attribute the same knowledge as if the accused were sober, but intention must be inferred from all circumstances, keeping the degree of intoxication in view.

Was the charge reduced from murder to culpable homicide?

No. The Supreme Court refused to reduce it to Section 304. The conviction and sentence for murder were upheld.

How does intoxication affect criminal liability?

Intoxication does not erase knowledge. Intention is assessed case by case, looking at conduct, degree of drunkenness, and surrounding facts.

What quick mnemonic helps remember Basdev?

K-I-N: Knowledge as sober; Intention from context; No automatic downgrade to 304.

Why do students study this case?

It cleanly separates knowledge and intention under Section 86 IPC and shows how courts treat drunkenness in serious offences.

Basdev v. State of Pepsu (1956)

Section 86 IPC — intoxication and the line between murder and culpable homicide in easy classroom English.

Supreme Court of India 1956 Bench: — 1956 AIR 488 Criminal Law 6 min read Gulzar Hashmi India

Quick Summary

Case Title: Basdev v. The State of Pepsu, 1956 AIR 488

Main Point: Under Section 86 IPC, a drunk person is treated as having the same knowledge as a sober person. But the intention must be judged from the whole situation and the level of intoxication.

Outcome: The Supreme Court did not reduce the offence to Section 304. The conviction and sentence for murder stood.

Issues

Should the appellant be convicted under Section 302 or under Section 304 in light of Section 86 IPC (intoxication)?

Rules

Courts attribute to a drunk accused the same knowledge as if he were sober. For intention, courts read the surrounding facts and the degree of drunkenness to decide what he meant to do.

Facts — Timeline

Timeline visual for facts of Basdev v. State of Pepsu (1956)

Appellant: Basdev, retired military Jamadar from Harigarh.

Deceased: Maghar Singh, a boy aged about 15–16.

12 Mar 1954: At a wedding meal, several attendees—including the appellant—had been drinking.

The appellant, very drunk, asked Maghar Singh to move so he could sit. The boy did not move.

The appellant took out a pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen. The injury was fatal.

The Sessions Judge convicted for murder (no motive found) and awarded life transportation. The High Court affirmed. Special Leave was taken to the Supreme Court.

Arguments

Appellant

Heavy intoxication affected intention; offence should fall under Section 304.
No motive or premeditation; trigger was a seat dispute at a wedding.
Benefit of doubt on whether he formed the mens rea for murder.

Respondent (State)

Under Section 86, knowledge is treated as if sober; shooting a vital part implies intention.
The act was aimed and deadly; level of drunkenness did not negate murder intent.
Conviction under Section 302 should stand.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court declined to reduce the offence to Section 304. It held that Section 86 attributes sober knowledge to the drunk accused, and on these facts, the shooting showed the required mental element for murder.

Ratio Decidendi

Knowledge is fixed: treat as if the accused were sober (Section 86).
Intention is read from the totality of facts and degree of intoxication.
A deliberate shot to a vital area supports murder despite intoxication.

Why It Matters

This decision draws a clear line for drunkenness cases: knowledge is presumed; intention must be tested against conduct. It stops an easy slide from 302 to 304 just because alcohol is involved.

Key Takeaways

Section 86: Knowledge as if sober.
Context counts: Intention from full facts.
Weapon use: Vital shot points to murder.

No automatic downgrade: Drunkenness ≠ 304.
Exam tip: Split knowledge and intention arguments.
Policy: Discourages alcohol-based excuses.

Mnemonic & 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic — “K-I-N”: Knowledge as sober → Intention from context → No automatic fall to 304.

Fix Knowledge: Assume sober knowledge.
Probe Intention: Check act, aim, and impact.
Test Downgrade: Only if intention truly falls short.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Should liability be under 302 or 304 considering Section 86?

Rule

Knowledge = as if sober; intention = inferred from circumstances and level of intoxication.

Application

Aimed shot at a vital part during a quarrel at a wedding supports the presence of the necessary mental element.

Conclusion

302 sustained; no reduction to 304.

Glossary

Section 86 IPC: Rule on intoxication: knowledge is treated as if the accused were sober; intention is judged from the circumstances.
Section 302: Punishment for murder.
Section 304: Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.