Basdev v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488

Basdev v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488 

Case Name: Basdev vs. State of Pepsu 

Court: Supreme Court of India 

Date of Decision: 17 April 1956 

Official Citation: AIR 1956 SC 488 

Hon’ble Bench: Justice N.H. Bhagwati 

Appellant: Basdev 

Respondent: State of Pepsu 

Background: 

The case of Basdev v. State of Pepsu is a milestone ruling under the 1860 Indian Penal Code  regarding the defense of voluntary intoxication under Section 86. The case arose from an  incident in which the appellant was heavily intoxicated, resulting in the shooting of the  deceased without any apparent motive for the act. Before the Supreme Court was whether or  not this intoxicated state would absolve the person of the intent necessary to commit murder,  thus reducing it to culpable homicide. The ruling revealed and clarified the principles of law  surrounding intoxication and differentiating between knowledge and intention. The Supreme  Court held that voluntary drunkenness is not a defense unless it absolutely prevents the accused  from forming the requisite intent. This ruling provides an important precedent by which  intoxication can be considered in the realm of criminal liability and is likely to influence future  understandings of “Section 85 and Section 86”1of the IPC. 

Facts of the Case: 

Basdev, a Jamadar who had recently retired from military service, had left the village of  Harigarh to attend a wedding with others from the same village and the deceased, Maghar  Singh, a boy aged 15-16. During the midday meal at the bride’s house on March 12, 1954, the  party drank heavily. Basdev was obviously inebriated and, as witnesses described, “almost  unconscious.” While in this quasi-conscious state, Basdev asked the boy to move aside so that  he could occupy a better spot. The boy refused, and Basdev produced a pistol and shot him in  the area of the abdomen, causing instant death. There was no prior enmity or motive established  in this case. After the boy was shot, Basdev attempted to abscond but was caught. The Sessions  Judge convicted him of murder under ‘Section 302 IPC’2but sentenced him to life  imprisonment (transportation for life) because he was in an intoxicated condition and there was  no evidence of premeditation. The PEPSU High Court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme  Court granted him special leave, which only allowed a review on whether the offense should  be reduced under ‘Section 304 IPC’3IPC in light of the provisions of Section 86. 

Issues of the Case: 

The case brought forth significant legal questions on criminal responsibility and intoxication: 

1. Application of Section 86, Indian Penal Code—Whether voluntary intoxication would  negate murder intent, taking the crime down to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 
2. Distinction Between Knowledge and Intention—How intoxication affects the presumption  that a person intends the natural consequence of their acts. 
3. Intoxication Needed Path to Defense – Whether the accused must demonstrate total  incapacity to form intent, or if just drunkenness will do. 
4. Relevance of Conduct and Circumstances – Whether behaviors after the act, lack of motive,  and conduct during the incident prove capacity remained. 
5. Judicial Interpretation of Case Law – The connection of English cases like Director of Public  Prosecutions v. Beard4to current Indian law. 

Arguments of the parties 

Appellant arguments 

1. Severe Intoxication—The appellant claimed that he was so drunk and almost unconscious  that he was incapable of forming the intent, for purposes of Section 302 IPC, to kill. 
2. Lack of Motive or Premeditation—There was no intent formed prior to the time of the act;  there was no animosity toward the deceased; and the act had been a spontaneous one due to  intoxication. Thus, he prayed that the conviction be reduced to culpable homicide under Section  304 IPC. 
3. Application of Section 86—He prayed in aid that the Court could contemplate that voluntary  intoxication amounted to not being capable of knowing and/or not knowing the nature or the  wrongfulness of the act. 
4. Observation by Witnesses—All of the witnesses, including Wazir Singh Lambardar,  described him as stumbling and incoherent to each; this supports the prayer that he was  incapable of knowing the nature or wrongfulness of his act. 
5. Reference to Case Law—The appellant cited cases, including Rex v. Meade & Others5, for  the premise that his intoxication rebuts the presumption of intent for purposes of the conviction  of murder under Section 302 IPC. 
6. Prayed that the conviction be reduced—predicated on these issues, he prayed that the Court  should, alternatively, deem and/or classify the offending conduct to be culpable homicide under  Section 304 IPC rather than murder under Section 302 IPC. 

Respondent’s arguments 

4. Retained Capacity—The Respondent argued, notwithstanding intoxication, Basdev’s  behavior (selecting a seat, aiming a pistol, fleeing) evidenced awareness and intention. 
5. Presumption of Intent – Under Section 86, knowledge is treated as if one were sober;  intention is inferred from all circumstances, and natural consequences are presumed. 
6. Failure to Prove Incapacity—Intoxication alone is not a basis for dismissal; Bailey requires  proof of loss of reason; no such proof of drunken incapacity was provided. 
7. Conduct after the Act—Basdev’s attempt to evade capture (fleeing) and subsequently  expressing remorse for the act would evidence his understanding of wrongfulness. 
8. Reference to Authority—Basdev advanced the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard by  noting that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to liability unless incapacity exists. 

Court Analysis: 

1. Legal Reasoning—The Supreme Court reasoned that although voluntary intoxication under  Section 86 will be attributed the same knowledge as though you were sober, the intentionality  of the act depends inversely on the degree of intoxication as well as the situation. 
2. Relevant Law—The Supreme Court relied primarily on Sections 85 and 86 of the Indian  Penal Code, but also upon English precedents such as Rex v. Meade (1909) and Director of  Public Prosecutions v. Beard (1920). 
3. Interpretation – The Court went on to say that where the violence of intoxication does not  cause a complete inability to form intent, there is the presumption that (and evidence of) one  intends to cause the natural consequences of their actions that are applied to the accused here.  In this case, there was evidence of partial control but not complete incapacity. 

Decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: 

The Supreme Court confirmed the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and  dismissed the appeal. According to the Court, the voluntary intoxication of the appellant could  not provide an excuse for lack of intention to kill, as he acted knowledgeable and intentionally.  The sentence of life imprisonment was maintained. The ruling explained that Sections 85 and  86 only offered limited protection regarding intoxication and offered defenses only where the  intoxication was involuntary or total incapacity similar to insanity. The judgment had a binding  effect under Article 141 of the Constitution and will help in some cases regarding the meaning  of intoxication for the purposes of any defenses in India. 

Importance of Basdev case : 

The Supreme Court’s judgment was an important step in clarifying to individuals how  voluntary intoxication may affect a person’s criminal liability, stating that intoxication that was  voluntarily caused is not in itself an excuse, unless it creates incapacity. In addition, it stepped  in to protect society from foolish and reckless acts while still holding individuals responsible for intent, promoting personal responsibility, and setting reasonable limits on what is  permissible in terms of defenses for murder. 

Conclusion: 

The Basdev ruling dramatically advances Indian criminal law and upholds that intoxication  means you cannot commit sober offenses. In adhering to the principles of justice and  accountability of law, the ruling covered intoxicated capacity as opposed to sober capacity and  required the accused to prove strict incapacity. The ruling brought a unified system on the  consistent use of Section 86; there remain evidential challenges. I did this for laws, society  awareness, and enforcement is the next step; everything else will fall in place to reduce these  incidents. Courts must consider how to balance compassion with public safety in intoxicated  incidents. 

Reference(S): 

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 85, 86, 302, 304) 
• Constitution of India (Article 141) 
• Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard (1920) 
• Rex v. Meade (1909) 
• Rex v. Meakin (1836) 

Websites: 

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/504992/ 
2. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/landmark-judgement/indian-penal-code/basdev-v the-state-of-pepsu-1956 
3. https://lawbhoomi.com/basdev-v-state-of-pepsu/ 
4. https://www.delhilawacademy.com/basdev-v-state-of-pe

1Indian kanoon, (Section 85 and 86 of IPC) < https://indiankanoon.org/doc/420874/ > accessed on 16 August  2025.

2Indian Kanoon, (Section 302 of IPC) < https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560742/ > accessed on 16 August 2025.

3Indian Kanoon, (Section 304 of IPC) < https://indiankanoon.org/doc/409589/ > accessed on 16 August 2025. 4 Director of Public Prosecutions V. Beard. (1920) AC 479

5 R. v. Meade 1 K.B. 895 (or Rex v. Meade in the older nomenclature).