🧑⚖️ Illustration:
A group of friends organized a house party where alcohol and narcotic substances were freely available. Aman, a member of the group, had never consumed alcohol, nor had he used any narcotic substances in his life. During the party, Aman’s friends mischievously spiked his soft drink with alcohol without his knowledge. As the evening progressed, they gave him 6-7 more glasses of alcohol-laced drinks, causing him to lose self-control and become visibly intoxicated.
Among the guests was Shruti, who voluntarily consumed alcohol and became heavily intoxicated. Around 1:30 AM, during the peak of the party, Aman and Shruti — both under the influence of alcohol — came closer while dancing. Amid laughter and enjoyment, they hugged each other and eventually engaged in physical intimacy.
The next morning, Shruti alleged that Aman took advantage of her intoxicated state and committed a sexual act without her valid consent.
❓Question:
Assuming the above facts, analyze the criminal liability of Aman in light of the following legal provisions:
1. Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – which defines rape and explains that consent obtained when a person is intoxicated does not amount to valid consent.
2. Section 23 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – which provides that an act done by a person who was intoxicated involuntarily or by fraud, and was therefore incapable of understanding the nature of the act, is not an offense.
⚖️ Points for Discussion:
- Can Aman be held liable for an act when he himself was intoxicated against his will and had no knowledge of the nature of the act committed?
- Does the intoxicated state of Shruti render her consent invalid, even if both parties were equally intoxicated?
- Can Section 23 provide a complete defense to Aman if the act falls under the definition of rape under Section 63?
- How should the Court balance the rights and protection of an intoxicated woman with the principle that criminal liability requires mens rea (guilty mind)?