Question

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.

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

Hint:

Intoxication can affect liability, but only if it renders the person incapable of understanding the nature of their actions.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

According to the principle, a person who commits an offence under intoxication, without knowledge or against their will, is not liable for the act if they were incapable of understanding the nature of the act. In this case, C was intoxicated, but it was not mentioned that C was incapable of understanding the nature of their actions. C's intoxication does not exempt them from liability. Additionally, while B was persuaded to consume alcohol, the intoxication caused B to act in a manner that led to the injury. However, C is the one who physically pushed B with force causing the injury.
Thus, the correct answer is (A) C is liable.
Option (B) is incorrect because intoxication alone does not absolve someone from responsibility unless it renders them incapable of understanding the act. Option (C) is incorrect because A's persuasion does not absolve C's actions. Option (D) is incorrect because while A may have influenced them, it is C's physical action that led to the injury.