The wording of the defense of intoxication is found in section 29 of the criminal code and sections 44 of the penal code. Under section 29(2)(b) of the code, intoxication is a defense if by reason of such intoxication “the person charged at the time of the act or omission complained of, did not know that such act or omission was wrong o
r did not know what he was doing and the person charged was by reason of intoxication insane. Temporarily or otherwise at the time of such an act or omission”. Where a person voluntarily intoxicates himself to commit an act, such intoxication can not succeed as a defense.
More Details on Intoxication
Though he does not realize that he is doing wrong nevertheless, he is not allowed by section29 (2)(a) of the criminal code to set up his self induced want of moral sense as adefence. Unless an accused state of intoxication was induced by the malicious or negligent act of another provided by sub-section 2(a) of the section, the defense is not available and unless there is intoxication given rise to temporary insanity the defense under section 29(2)(a) of the criminal code is not available.
The sort of situation contemplated is where, for instance a person is drinking beer and unknown to him another person parts some highly intoxicating spirit into the beer so making him intoxicated when he would not have been if he had drunk the beer alone.
The doctrine of criminal responsibility in case of drunkenness due to alcohol is equally applicable to mental or bodily conditions caused by the drinking of narcotics or non-alcoholic stimulants or exciting drugs or their hypodermic injection.
Under the penal code, drunkenness is not a defense. This is provided for under section 44 of the penal code which states that “a person who does an act in a state of intoxication is presumed to have the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.
Intoxication is a question of fact to be established by evidence. It is not proved by the mere mention of the word. Similarly insanity is not proved also by mere mention of the word. These defenses are also not proved by mere denial of knowledge when or that the act was committed.
The burden of proof of intoxication as a defense rests on the person charged.The court must be satisfied on evidence as to the nature, quantity and quality of the drink or other causes of drunkenness resulting to intoxication. The period of none of the drinking and the lapse of time between the drinking and the commission of the offence is a material factor. Surrounding circumstances must also be taken into consideration.