Question

Principle: Nothing is an offence if it is done under intoxication and the person commuting the offence was incapable to understand the nature of the Act. Intoxication should be without knowledge or against the will of the person.
Facts: A, B and C were having a party in Bar where A pursuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent persuasion B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxiation, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B.
This question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as ‘principle‘) and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. Principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your ability in legal aptitude, study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the ’most reasonable conclusion‘ arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason.

• A. C is liable
• B. C is not liable because he was intoxicated
• C. A is liable because A pursuaded them to consume alcohol whereas they had never consumed alcohol
• D. A and C both are liable

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Break the principle into its two required ingredients. First, the intoxication must have left the person incapable of understanding the nature of the act. Second, and separately, that intoxication must have come about without the person's knowledge or against their will. Both ingredients need to be present for the offence to be excused.

On these facts, B and C were persuaded to drink, but persuasion is not the same as being intoxicated without knowledge or against one's will, both men knew alcohol was being poured and chose to keep consuming it after being talked into it. That failure on the second ingredient is enough to keep the exception from applying at all, regardless of how the first ingredient might have played out.

With the exception unavailable, ordinary liability rules apply, and it is C, not A, who committed the actual pushing that injured B. A's persuasion explains why the drinking happened, but it is not the act that caused the injury, so liability for that specific act rests with C alone.

So the correct answer is C is liable.

Answer 2

Asking what fact would need to change for each option to be correct isolates the real issue quickly.

1. C is liable: No change is needed, B and C already drank with full knowledge after being persuaded, which means the intoxication was not involuntary, and that is enough on its own to keep the exception from applying to C.
2. C is not liable because he was intoxicated: This would only hold if the intoxication had happened without C's knowledge or against his will, but the facts show persuasion followed by willing consumption, so the fact this option needs is simply absent.
3. A is liable because A pursuaded them to consume alcohol whereas they had never consumed alcohol before: This would require persuasion itself to count as the offending act, but it is the push by C that injured B, not the persuasion by A, so this option is testing the wrong actor's conduct.
4. A and C both are liable: This would need A to have committed some act of injury as well, but A only persuaded them to drink, which is a separate matter from the pushing, so no basis for A's liability exists here.

Since the drinking was voluntary and the pushing was done by C alone, the option that keeps liability on C is the one that needs no unstated fact to be true.

Therefore, the correct answer is C is liable.