Question:medium

Principle: Nothing is an offence if it is done under intoxication and the person committing 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 a Bar where A persuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent pursuasion B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxication, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B.

Show Hint

Intoxication can affect liability, but only if it renders the person incapable of understanding the nature of their actions.
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • C is liable
  • C is not liable because he was intoxicated
  • A is liable because A persuaded them to consume alcohol whereas they had never consumed alcohol
  • A and C both are liable
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Approach Solution - 1

Step 1: Understanding the Principle:
Intoxication excuses an offence only when it happens without the person's knowledge or against their will, and only if it leaves them unable to understand the nature of their act.

Step 2: Applying the Principle to the Facts:
C drank after being persuaded by A, which is a choice C made, not something forced on C without knowledge. During the argument that followed, C pushed B with full force, an act that shows C still understood what he was doing.

Step 3: Evaluating the Other Options:
Intoxication alone does not excuse C, since it was not involuntary. A's persuasion led to the drinking but not to the push, so A cannot be blamed for C's separate act, and there is no basis to hold both A and C liable together.

Step 4: Final Answer:
C is liable for pushing B, since the intoxication was voluntary and does not meet the conditions of the defence.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Show Solution

Approach Solution -2

Major premise: intoxication excuses an offence only if it was without the person's knowledge or against their will, and only where it left them incapable of understanding the nature of the act. Minor premise: C drank after being persuaded, which he chose to do, and then pushed B with full force during an argument. Testing the conclusions:

  1. C is liable: This follows directly, since the minor premise shows neither involuntary intoxication nor an inability to understand the act, so the major premise's exception simply does not apply to C.
  2. C is not liable, as he was intoxicated: This conclusion would need the major premise to excuse any intoxication, but the major premise conditions the excuse on involuntariness and incapacity, neither of which the minor premise establishes.
  3. A is liable for persuading them to drink: This conclusion needs a premise linking A's persuasion to the act of pushing, but the minor premise shows the push was C's own separate act during the argument, unconnected to A's role in the earlier drinking.
  4. A and C are both liable: This conclusion, too, needs A to bear responsibility for the push itself, which the minor premise does not support, since A took no part in that act.

Only the first option follows once the major premise's two conditions, involuntariness and incapacity, are tested against the minor premise and found absent.

Therefore, the correct answer is C is liable.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on General Knowledge

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. A new order cannot be established without radically changing the mind and attitude of men towards property and, at some stage or the other, the 'haves' have to yield place to the 'have-nots'. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. It may even be that, like a gas kept confined within containers under great pressure, or water held back by a big dam, once the barrier breaks, the reaction will one day sweep back with a violence equal in extent and intensity to what was used to establish and maintain the outward egalitarian form. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. If egalitarianism is to endure, it has to be based not on the possession of the maximum material goods by a few or by all but on voluntary, enlightened renunciation of those goods which cannot be shared by others or can be enjoyed only at the expense of others.

According to the passage, egalitarianism will not survive if
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): The work which Gandhiji had taken up was not only regarding the achievement of political freedom but also the establishment of a new social order based on truth and non-violence, unity and peace, equality and universal brotherhood and maximum freedom for all. This unfinished part of his experiment was perhaps even more difficult to achieve than the achievement of political freedom. In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. In establishing a social order on this pattern, there was a strong possibility of a conflict arising between diverse groups and classes of our own people.

According to the passage, which was the unfinished part of Gandhi's experiment?
View Solution
Read the passage and answer the question.

Passage (extract): In the political struggle, the fight was against a foreign power and all one could do was either join it or wish it success and give it his/her moral support. Experience shows that man values his possessions even more than his life because in the former he sees the means for perpetuation and survival of his descendants even after his body is reduced to ashes. We have seen, in our time, attempts to achieve a kind of egalitarian society and the picture of it after it was achieved. But this was done, by and large, through the use of physical force. This enforced egalitarianism contains, in its bosom, the seed of its own destruction. The root cause of class conflict is possessiveness or the acquisitive instinct.

Which of the following statements is 'not true' in the context of the passage?
View Solution