Section 23

This provision continues the rule found in Section 85 of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860. Criminal law generally requires a guilty mind (mens rea) for an act to be punishable. The law recognizes that a person forced or tricked into intoxication — for example, through spiked food or drink — loses the capacity to form intent or understand their actions, much like someone suffering from unsoundness of mind. However, the law draws a sharp line: it protects only involuntary intoxication. If a person voluntarily drinks or consumes drugs knowing the risks, they cannot use their own resulting incapacity as an excuse, since allowing that would let people escape responsibility by deliberately getting drunk before committing crimes.

Under the identical Section 85 of the IPC, Indian courts consistently held that voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime unless it negates the specific intent required for offences needing 'intention' (though even then, courts have been cautious). Courts have emphasized that the burden of proving involuntary intoxication — that the substance was administered without the person's knowledge or against their will — lies on the accused. Judgments have also clarified that mere intoxication is not enough; the accused must show a total incapacity to understand the nature of the act or that it was wrong or illegal, not merely reduced judgment or self-control.

• Myth: Being drunk or high is always a valid excuse for committing a crime.
  Fact: The law only excuses intoxication that was involuntary — meaning it was given to the person without their knowledge or against their will. Voluntarily choosing to drink or use drugs does not excuse criminal acts.
• Myth: Any level of intoxication is enough to claim this defense.
  Fact: Courts require proof that the person was so incapacitated that they could not understand the nature of their act or that it was wrong or illegal — mild impairment or reduced judgment is not sufficient.