could be serious evil consequences if men should act on self-induced intoxication and seek to avoid to take the legal consequences of their act upon a claim that they are insane. This need to protect society is recognized even in an assault case. (See D.P.P. v. Mojewski (1975) 3 W.L.R. 404 Per Lawton, L.J. and the judgment of Lord Elwyn-Jones, L.C., on appeal to the House of Lords in the case in (1976) 2 All E.R at P.145 let alone in cases involving the taking of lives." at page 29 of the report." Per YAKUBU,J.C.A. (Pp.21-22,paras.G-C) (...read in context) 6. EVIDENCE - DEFENCE OF INTOXICATION: The three major effect of intoxication/drunkness "The locus classicus on the defence of drunkenness or intoxication seems to be Egbe Nkanu v. The State (1980) 3 -4 SC 1 where at page 18, my Lord Obaseki, JSC expounded the law thus: "What is "intoxication" in the legal sense? It is best described by its effects on the human sense of reasoning. It is "Defect of reason arising from Drunkenness" and three different effects are categorized. (1) Drunkenness may impair a man's power of perception so that he may not be able to foresee or measure the consequences of his actions as he would if he were sober. Nevertheless, the law does not allow him to set up selfinduced want of perception as a defence. See section 29(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. Even if as the appellant alleged he did not appreciate that what he was doing was dangerous, nevertheless, if a reasonable man in his place who was not befuddled with drink would have appreciated it he is guilty. R. v. Meade (1919) 1.K.B. 895. D.P.P. v. Beard (1920) A.C. 479, Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v. Gallagher (1963) A.C 349 (per Lord Denning). 2. It may impair a man's power to judge between right and wrong so that he may do a thing when drunk which he would not dream of doing when sober. Though he does not realize that he is doing wrong nevertheless, he is not allowed by Section 29(2)(a) of the Criminal Code to set up his self induced want of moral sense as a defence. See also D.P.P. v. Beard (1920) A.C. at P.506. (3) It may impair a man's power of self-control so that he may more readily give way to provocation, than if he were sober. Our law section 29(2)(a) Criminal Code does not afford his self-induced want of control as a defence.".Per YAKUBU,J.C.A. (Pp.20-21,paras.E-G) (...read in context) 7. EVIDENCE - DEFENCE OF INTOXICATION/INSANE DELUSION: At what instance will the defence of intoxication or insane delusion avail an accused person "Therefore, for a defence of intoxication or insane delusion to avail an accused person such as the appellant herein, his reaction to the state of things as believed by him must be such that it could be