ABSTRACT
Intoxication as a criminal law defence is normally classified as either voluntary or involuntary. This distinction is important for analytic purposes even if the boundary line between voluntary and involuntary intoxication is not clear in all situations. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) adopted the same view and inserted a provision that expressly recognised that voluntary intoxication is not a defence even though it negates the knowledge or intent required for an offence. Macaulays draft Code contained no provision recognising voluntary intoxication as a defence to intentional crimes, whether specific or general. The IPC expressly includes a provision on voluntary intoxication which appears to reject voluntary intoxication as a defence even if it negates specific intent or knowledge. There is disagreement and uncertainty in many jurisdictions on the question of whether an accused is entitled to rely on certain defences if, due to voluntary intoxication, that person has a mistaken belief with regard to an essential element of that defence.
