A:
Punishable because being intoxicated is also an offence.
B:
Punishable, if the crime committed is an offence that does not require mens rea.
C:
Punishable, if the crime committed is an offence punishable with imprisonment for seven years or more.
D:
Punishable, if the crime involves physical injury to another person.
E:
Not punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Explanation
The correct option is E: Not punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Explanation:
In Indian law, the concept of intoxication as a defense is covered under Section 85 and Section 86 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 85 of the IPC states that "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law." This means that if a person commits a crime while intoxicated to the extent that they are incapable of understanding the nature of their actions or that what they are doing is wrong, they cannot be held criminally liable.
Section 86 of the IPC further clarifies that "In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will."
This means that even if a crime does require a particular mental state (mens rea), if a person is intoxicated against their will (for example, drugged without their consent), they would not be held criminally liable for the act.
So, in the scenario described in the question where a person is intoxicated against their will and commits a crime when they are incapable of knowing the nature of their actions, they would not be punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Option E is the correct choice.
