Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 23

Act of a Person Incapable of Sound Discernment by Reason of Involuntary Intoxication

Section 23 exempts a person from criminal responsibility where, at the time of doing the act, that person, by reason of intoxication, was incapable of knowing either the nature of the act, or that it was wrong or contrary to law — but only where the intoxicating substance was administered to that person without his knowledge or against his will.

Please note: This page reflects our understanding of the law as of the date it was last reviewed. Parliament, the State Legislatures, and the courts continue to amend and interpret this law, and this page may not yet reflect the most recent change. Please verify the current text of the law independently, and consult a licensed advocate for advice on your own matter, before relying on this page.

Corresponding Provision Under Prior Law

Verified against the National Crime Records Bureau's official BNS–IPC concordance (Sankalan Portal) and cross-checked directly against the bare text of both Acts. Lexovia classes Section 23 as Exact correspondence:

BNS 23	Covers	IPC, 1860 equivalent	Category
23	Act of a person incapable of sound discernment by reason of involuntary intoxication	S.85 (word-for-word identical rule)	Exact

Comparing the bare text directly, BNS Section 23 reproduces old IPC Section 85 without any substantive change — the only difference found is a single punctuation mark (a semicolon replacing a colon before “provided”), with no change to the legal meaning.

Quick Reference

Section 23 is a General Exception — the involuntary-intoxication defence, not itself a stand-alone offence. It carries no BNSS First Schedule entry and no cognizable/bailable/compoundable/triable-court classification of its own; it operates as a complete defence to whatever charge the act might otherwise attract.

What it requires: at the time of the act, by reason of intoxication, the person was incapable of knowing either (i) the nature of the act itself, or (ii) that the act was wrong or contrary to law; and the intoxicating substance was administered to that person without his knowledge or against his will.
Voluntary intoxication is not covered: the second condition is the key limiting factor — a person who chose to become intoxicated cannot rely on this section.
Effect where it applies: the act done is not an offence at all.

Statutory Text (Verbatim)

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; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Source: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), as published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary.

Explanation & Illustration (Lexovia's Commentary — Not Statutory Text)

Two conditions: cognitive incapacity, and involuntary intoxication

Explanation (Lexovia's Commentary)

This section mirrors Section 22's cognitive test for unsoundness of mind, but applies it to intoxication instead, with one crucial added restriction. The cognitive test is identical: the person must, at the time of the act, have been incapable, by reason of intoxication, of knowing either the nature of the act itself, or that the act was wrong or contrary to law. But this section adds a second, independent requirement that Section 22 does not have: the intoxicating substance must have been administered to the person without his knowledge or against his will. This proviso is what confines the exemption to genuinely involuntary intoxication — being secretly drugged, or being made to consume an intoxicant through force or deception. A person who voluntarily drinks or otherwise knowingly takes an intoxicating substance, even to the point of losing the relevant cognitive capacity, cannot rely on this section; the position of a person who is intoxicated voluntarily is dealt with elsewhere, for instance in Section 24. Both conditions must be satisfied together — cognitive incapacity alone, without involuntary administration, is not enough.

Illustration (Lexovia's Own Example)

A person's drink is secretly spiked by another guest at a party, without the person's knowledge, causing severe intoxication far beyond anything the person could have anticipated from what he believed he was drinking. In this state, and incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong, the person damages property belonging to the host. Because the intoxication was both the cause of his incapacity to know the act was wrong, and was administered to him without his knowledge, Section 23 exempts him from criminal responsibility for the damage — in contrast to a person who voluntarily became equally intoxicated by his own choice, who would not be able to rely on this section.

Want legal research on any topic or drafting? Order Now →

Related / Cross-Referenced Sections

FAQs

Does this section protect a person who chose to drink alcohol and became intoxicated voluntarily?

No. This section requires the intoxicating substance to have been administered without the person's knowledge or against his will. Voluntary intoxication is not covered by this section.

Is cognitive incapacity alone, without proof of involuntary administration, enough?

No. Both conditions must be satisfied together: the cognitive incapacity caused by the intoxication, and proof that the intoxicating substance was administered without the person's knowledge or against his will.

What is the practical effect if this section applies?

The act is not an offence at all — it is a complete defence, not merely a factor reducing punishment.