Section 85 of Pakistan penal code lays down that nothing is an offense which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of 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.
The ingredients of this section are that a person will be exonerated from liability for an act done while in a state of intoxication if he at the time of doing it, by reason of intoxication was:
1. incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
2. That he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.
3. That the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
Voluntary drunkenness is no excuse for the commission of the crime. But if a man is made drunk through stratagem or the fraud of others, or through ignorance, or through any other means against his will, he is excused.
Section 86 of Pakistan penal code further says that a person voluntarily drunk will be deemed to have the same knowledge and liable for the consequences as he would have had if he had not intoxicated. The section attributes to a drunken man the knowledge of a sober man when judging of his action , unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
OFFENSES RELATING TO RELIGION
They are provided in section 295 to 298 of Pakistan penal code , which are as follow:
1. Injuring or defiling a place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with intent to insult the religion of any class of persons. (section 295-punishment up to two years with or without fine)
2. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs (section 295-A-punishment up to three years)
3. Voluntarily disturbing a religious assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies. ( section 296-punishment up-to one year)
4.Trespassing in any place of worship , or burial place, offering any indignity to a human corpse, with intent to wound the feelings or religion of any person. (section 297-punishment up-to one year)
5. Uttering words or making signs with the intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person (section 298-punishment up-to one year).
6. Using derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Passenger . Section 298-A-punishment up-to three years or fine or both.
PLEA OF COMPULSION OR NECESSITY
The excuse of necessity or compulsion as a defense for an act cannot be pleaded except as provided in Section 94 of the Pakistan Penal Code. That section lays down that except murder and offenses against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offense which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the person doing the act did not, of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint. This section will not, however, save a person who, of his own accord or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits. But if he is seized by a gang of dacoits and forced by threat of instant death to do a thing which is an of fence by law. for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it under pain of instant death, will be entitled to the benefit of this section.
It is thus clear from the above that a person is excused from the consequences of any act, except murder and of fences against the State punishable with death, done under fear of instant death ;but fear of hurt or even of grievous hurt is not a sufficient justification. It has been held that the accused was not entitled to the protection of Section 94 of the Code in the case where the threat of instant death was present at the beginning or even some time afterwards but did not continue till the end of the commission of an of fence. There must be the apprehension of force upon the person and fear of death, and this force and fear must continue to be present at the time of the act.