Judgment :- 1. The appellant is Kunjan Narayanan accused in the Sessions Case No. 39 of 1957 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kottayam. He has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for causing the death of one Damodaran by stabbing him with a knife at about 5 P. M. on 22-1-1957. 2. The prosecution case is as follows: 3. The accused, deceased and Pws. 2 and 4 are sawyers engaged by Pw.1.On 22-1-1957 at about 4 P. M., Pw.1 asked the new comers Pw. 2 and the deceased to live with the accused and Pw. 4 in the Pachilamkadavu house under his control. They were given money for purchasing rice and other things and were permitted to pluck tapioca from his compound for their evening meals. Accused and Pw. 4 were returning from a toddy shop when the new comers joined them and all of them went to a toddy shop, the accused for a second bout. Damodaran the deceased paid for the drinks of himself and Pws. 2 and 3, but refused to pay for the toddy drunk by the accused. This led to a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused and all the 4 went to meet Pw.1 who was bathing in a nearby channel for a mediation. Pw.1 pacified them and promised to settle their disputes the next day, if they would go and live amicably. The accused and others then returned to the Pachilamkadavu house. Damodaran was seated on the eastern verandah of the house and preparing tapioca for boiling when the accused stabbed him from behind with a knife. Damodaran jumped into the court yard, but was followed by the accused who stabbed him again on the chest and hand. The matter was reported to Pw. 1, who reached the scene and found Damodaran lying dead, and the accused detained in a shop nearby. He went to Erattupettah and by Ext. P-1 First Information Statement informed the police about the occurrence. The police investigated the case, charge sheeted the accused, who was eventually tried by the Sessions Judge of Kottayam and sentenced to life imprisonment as mentioned above. 4. The accused did not say anything about the occurrence in the Magistrate's Court. But in the Sessions Court he admitted that himself, Damodaran and Pws. The police investigated the case, charge sheeted the accused, who was eventually tried by the Sessions Judge of Kottayam and sentenced to life imprisonment as mentioned above. 4. The accused did not say anything about the occurrence in the Magistrate's Court. But in the Sessions Court he admitted that himself, Damodaran and Pws. 2 and 3 went to the toddy shop for drinking toddy and that owing to difference of opinion Damodaran paid for the toddy for himself and Pws. 2 and 3 and refused to pay for the accused though he owed him money. A wordy quarrel ensued between himself, Damodaran and Pws. 2 and 3 on the way back to the house. After reaching the house also there was some altercation and Pw. 4 took all of them to Pw. 1, who promised to settle the matter the next day. They again returned to Pachilamkadavu house. There an exchange of words went on for some time during the course of which Pw. 2 threw a cocoanut found in the court yard which hit the accused. Then Damodaran and Pws. 2 and 3 beat the accused and Damodaran saying that the accused must be killed, pressed his throat, and then the accused took his knife and brandished the same. The next morning he found himself lying with his legs tied in a shop verandah and was later taken to Erattupettah Police Station. 5. There is no dispute about the factum of Damodaran's death or its cause. The fact that the accused caused the injury is also conceded. The dispute is only about the circumstances under which the stabbing took place. So the most important question to be decided is which version, the prosecution's or the accused's is true. As for the events that happened before their return from Pw. 1, there is no dispute and therefore it is not necessary to deal with the evidence about that part of the case. Pws. 2 and 3 gave clear and consistent evidence about the actual incident. They state that Damodaran after reaching the house sat on the eastern side of the southern verandah and began to cut tapioca with the lid of a cigarette tin. Pws. 2 and 3 gave clear and consistent evidence about the actual incident. They state that Damodaran after reaching the house sat on the eastern side of the southern verandah and began to cut tapioca with the lid of a cigarette tin. The accused then went and stood behind Damodaran and when Damodaran was about to rise up after finishing the work of cutting the tapioca, to their surprise the accused stabbed Damodaran on his back with M. 0.1 knife. At once Damodaran jumped from there to the courtyard. But the accused followed him and stabbed him twice. One stab was on the lower part of the left hand and the other was on the chest, and Damodaran fell down. The lower court has been favourably impressed with the evidence of these witnesses. These 2 witnesses differ only on one point. Pw. 2 says that there was no altercation, but Pw. 3 says otherwise. But both are positive that there was no tussle between the accused and Damodaran. The accused's version that Pws. 2 and 3 and Damodaran attacked him and he had to brandish the knife in self-defence is not believed by the Additional Sessions Judge for convincing reasons. Pw. 3 was not asked anything at all about it and the only question put to Pw. 2 is whether Damodaran hit the accused with a cocoanut. This is against the case of the accused himself. What the accused stated when he was questioned by the court was that Pw. 2 threw a cocoanut at him. It may also be noted in this connection that the accused had no injury on his person. Pw. 6 caught hold of the accused immediately after the incident and detained him. If the accused was assaulted as alleged by him, there would have been some marks of injury on his person. There was not even a suggestion made to Pw. 6 that he noticed any injuries on the accused. We find that the case that Pws. 2 and 3 and Damodaran belaboured the accused is not true and that the accused stabbed Damodaran under the circumstances mentioned by Pws. 2 and 3. 6. Another argument urged by the defence counsel was that the accused, intoxicated as he was, could not have the necessary intention contemplated by S.300 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 and 3 and Damodaran belaboured the accused is not true and that the accused stabbed Damodaran under the circumstances mentioned by Pws. 2 and 3. 6. Another argument urged by the defence counsel was that the accused, intoxicated as he was, could not have the necessary intention contemplated by S.300 of the Indian Penal Code. In AIR 1954 Madras 523 (In re Suruttayyan) it is stated that it is only in cases where it is proved that the prisoner was in such a condition of drunkenness that his reason was "dethroned and was incapable of forming any intention, that the defence of drunkenness would be available." This position is elaborately discussed and made clear in the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1956 Supreme Court 488 (Basdev v. State of Pepsu) The degree of intoxication is the criterion. "Was the man beside his mind altogether for the time being? If so it would not be possible to fix him with the requisite intention." In the present case, the accused though drunk has not gone so "deep in drinking" as not to know what he was about. When Pw.1 pacified him by promising to settle the matter next day, he made no protest and betrayed no sign of excessive drunkenness. His conduct all along clearly shows that he could form correct decisions in matters that affected him. At best the intoxication has only touched his mind so that "he more readily gave way to some violent passion." It is not possible to reduce the offence from murder to one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because of the accused's voluntary drunkenness. In the result, the conviction and sentence are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. Dismissed.