INTRODUCTION
Battered Woman Syndrome (referred to as BWS) was introduced by Lenore Walker, an American clinical psychologist in the late 1970s, after Battered Woman Movement emerging in United States battled. It gave legal recognition to the growing and uprising issue of battered woman, who in order to lead a torment-free future, kills her husband, ends the cycle of violence and to her fate is faced by acute charges of murder for her act. The root of the movement attempts to end the ongoing innate struggle, abuse and battering of women by their spouses. This movement started due to lack of legal support to the battered woman, in the recognition of the increase in rape crimes and domestic violence and beating on the woman. The frequency of violence by men on them escalated to such heights that the abused women were placed in a ‘kill-or-be-killed’, often resulting in the killing of the batterer to end the violence. Unfortunately, the apocryphal structure of provocation and doctrine of self defense framed encompassing the male experiences, failed to look into the gendered fear, the preceding violence, the years of horrifying abuse not only physical but also psychological and sexual. This can be adequately understood by the statement of Kiranjit[1], very rightly describing her helpless situation in 1989 “Today, I have come out of my husband’s jail and entered the jail of the law”
WHAT IS BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME?
Is it a convenient label or an actual syndrome?
Battered woman syndrome is a psychological condition enumerating the horrific story behind the act of eventual homicide committed more often by the battered woman on account of prolonged abuse and violence. Crushing the primary agenda of the movement by placing the frequent question asked in the trials of such women was “Why doesn’t she leave?”[2] This has been rightly answered by introducing the term BWS, pattern of behavior based upon a series of physical and psychological abuse suffered by women in an abusive bond. She rightly defined a battered woman as “a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful, physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without any concern for her rights”[3]. This observed a paradigm shift from the way domestic violence was looked at, from a private issue to a public gaze categorizing it as a criminal offence that took place through the efforts of the movement in the early 1970s.
Learned helplessness
Due to the constant long term abuse and beating, the victim can suffer through ‘learned helplessness’[4], a psychological term coined by Dr. Martin Seligman, in which the battered woman believes that she is helpless and lacks the capability to escape or retaliate, leaving her depressed, defeated and passive. This gripping fear seems real to the victim which ultimately makes her weak and despair. The BWS grip further appears to strengthen with the hope that soon the violence will halt and everything will be back to normal.
Cycle of Violence
Lenore Walker developed the theory of “Cycle of Violence” or the “Walker Cycle Theory” which embodies three separate distinct stages- Firstly, the ‘tension building phase’[5] where we see multiple verbal fights accompanied with severe verbal put-downs, humiliations, degradations as well as social and economic isolation resulting in psychological abuse crushing her self-esteem and personhood. Followed by the ‘acute battering incident’[6] where she encounters severe blows, beating, physical power assertion due to uncontrollable anger of the batterer resulting in fear, depression and loss of cognitive faculty in the abused woman. The last stage of ‘loving contribution’ ignites a ray of hope in the woman in consequence of the batterer’s repentance, profuse apologies and assurance of never to do it again. This cycle of violence results in learned helplessness, which makes them bound in the abusive relation along with all the other socio-economic factors and the inherent belief of undermining their identity and blaming themselves for the abuse captures their souls forever in that relationship compelling them to take recourse to either ultimate killing of the abuser, to end the vicious cycle of violence or to forever be submissive and grounded by the batterer.[7]
An alternate theory propounded by Edward Gondolf and Ellen Fisher terming it [8]‘The Survivor Theory’ explains the reason for the battered woman to stay in the abusive relationship, acknowledging the harsh truth, that in order to survive, her remaining in the abusive state was the only way out. It faced multiple criticisms by many scholars including Evan Stark on the basis that this theory contradicted the very foundation theory of the behavior of battered women by Walker.[9]
BWS was criticized by many feminists and scholars like Martha R Mahoney, on the grounds that it established inequality and portrayed women to be inferior, helpless, powerless, and weak and importantly reinforces the assertion of patriarchy. She further introduced an understanding known as ‘separation assault’ which highlighted the violence of the batterer and his power over the woman rather than the helplessness of the battered woman.[10]
Lenore walker in his 4th edition book, 2016[11] provided the theory with the conclusion that domestic violence within a relationship can endure psychological complications like “(1) re-experiencing the trauma events intrusively, (2) high levels of arousal and anxiety and numbing of emotions, (3) cognitive difficulties, (4) disruption in interpersonal relationships, (5) physical health and body related problem, (6) sexual intimacy issues”[12].
Nallathangal Syndrome
Madras High Court in 1989 developed the ‘Nallathangal’s Syndrome’ and applied it in the case of Suyambukkani v. State of Tamil Nadu.[13] This concept was referred from an old Tamil literature text named ‘Nallathangal’s Ballad’[14] which showcased the tribulations of a rich woman who by the husband received harsh misery and later committed suicide by jumping in the nearby well with her two children. Hence, applying this concept to the aforementioned case which narrated the similar incidents where the wife was battered by the husband so much so that she committed suicide by throwing her children along with herself into the well but to her misfortune she survived. The court keeping in mind the syndrome held her guilty of culpable homicide but not amounting to murder falling under one of the exception of Indian Penal Code, 1860- section 300. The question still prevailed in the Indian courts as to why don’t this battered woman leave the relationship and seek protection under the law enforcement agencies. But the deeply ingrained old socialization force the battered woman to conceal their marriage and sufferings, further compounded by the socio-cultural norms and lack of legal support to the lives and experience of such battered woman reinforces dominant ideologies of men and establishment of patriarchal force which is the centre to domestic violence.[15] An enactment requires effective implementations to bring about social change. For this progress, law enforcement interactions with the domestic violence’s cases should be often and dealt with utmost sincerity and sensitivity.
Doctrine of Self-defense
Surprisingly , India could not undertake self defense, has a complete defense in cases of battered woman failing to take more abuse, ending up killing their abusers in the act of self preservations, mainly because of the traditional male centric structure unlike countries like Australia, Queensland and Canada who have already expanded their traditional law of self-defense to defend battered woman, and take it as a proper consideration of the circumstances under which these woman kill their abusers which is often required to counterbalance the bias against woman which had resulted from the gendered law of traditional self-defense structure. This expansion of the self-defense structure within criminal law does not give the woman any special consideration, rather compensates to the existing bias.
The defense of self defense was applied to cases like Malliga v. State, [16]Meera v. State of Rajasthan[17]and in Champa Rani Mondal v. State of West Bengal[18], court approved the defense and released her as she pleaded the right of private defense. But unfortunately, due to the narrow traditional self-defense structure cases like State v. Leidholm[19], Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh[20] and Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh [21] where the accused had pleaded the right to private defense but the court held it to be null since it exceeded his right, and such right can only be pleaded in case of Impending danger. According to all these cases, a conclusion can be derived that the problem with the traditional self defense structure was that it recognizes force to be used only on encountering imminent danger preceding the act which failed to accommodate the experiences of the battered woman which is long-term and prolonged in nature, and with the mere withdrawal of violence can cause fear in the woman which is unfortunately not taken as ‘imminent danger’ by the courts and hence led to their conviction.
Defense of Provocation
A defense mostly used by many battered woman is the defense of provocation which is under the category of partial defense, excusing the charge of murder to simply limiting it to culpable homicide in India.[22]Is this defense substantive enough to prove the sufferings of the battered woman? No, with the acknowledgment of the status and social realities of woman to that of men, the issue arises when the law has to be employed to a woman being convicted for murder. The terms of the exception to section 300 of the Indian penal code,1860 shows the importance of lack of power of self-control in the offender due to sudden and grave provocation, which is less seen in battered women cases. The Supreme Court in the case of K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra[23], opined that the test of grave and sudden provocation is “whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class of the society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.”[24] This yardstick of reasonable man was universally applied ignoring the two different idiosyncratic, biologically as well as socially unique backgrounds, and attempting to cover the gap by this formal equality which is illusionary since the battered woman and the reasonable man is not on the same plane or equal. This imbalance in such male centric framework of law, where the woman is presumed to slip into the social and legal constructions of it, leads to mere injustice. Thus, the defense of provocation in India, disguising its male masculinity and power ignores the fundamental fact that women do not react to such sudden provocations like men, especially not battered women. Cases like Chinnan v. State[25], K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra[26] and much more faced injustice because of such standards. Thus, the provocation defense with its gender problems born of its origin has rendered many unjust cases.
RECOGNITION OF BWS IN INDIA
Need for its inclusion within the criminal law of India…
Violence or abuse within the four walls was considered to be a private and shameful issue in India. It was conveniently decided by the law authorities to call it a private matter which could be best solved within the house and not in public or legal forum. Cases of domestic violence, intimate partner violence and other kinds of abuse were left in the hands of the perpetrators who often committed the crime and escaped because of the weak existing laws like the Anti-Dowry Violence Movement started in early 1970s inspired by the movement in the United States. There was need for social and legal reforms related to battered women and all kinds of male exertions resulting in grave crimes, which instilled in the state authorities to make laws regarding women safety and thus enacted the law of Protection Of women from Domestic Violence act, 2005 and amendments was made in the IPC to penalize the acts of brutality towards woman which compelled them to kill or be killed, in 1980s.[27]
BWS was first recognized in India in 2013, Guwahati high court in the case of Manju Lakra v state of Assam[28], the wife in retaliation to the constant beating and prolonged abuse of her husband she hit him on his chest, head, leg, neck and abdominal areas to which he eventually succumbed to death. The trial court held her convicted of murder but the high court enumerated the possibility of the wife being the actual victim of domestic violence and referred to the case of R v. Ahluwalia[29]. After hearing the sequence of events preceding the act of killing, the court held that “The provocation, which the conduct of the accused-appellant’s husband so provided to the accused-appellant, was not only grave, but can be perceived as sudden, too…”[30] and reduced her sentence.
A very recent case came to the Delhi high court in 2016 of State v Hari Prasad[31], where the battered wife committed suicide because of the cruel treatment mended to her and long term violence to which the court convicted the husband for provocation and death of her life. CONCLUSION
Do we really need to label a woman irrational rather than accepting her act of self-preservation and fear of being harmed?[32]
Even though BWS has been recognized in India, there has been no such case where the defendants of the battered woman have used the expert evidence on BWS as a complete substantive defense. The research overtly shows that the use of BWS can have adverse impact on those women who do not fit into the very notion of having BWS- perhaps because of its inherent limitations. These limitations portray women as ‘psychologically unstable’ and irrational hence, promoting male stereotype society. Even with the inclusion of a complete defense, focus has to be made in the direction of societal development and sincerity towards crime relating to domestic violence against battered women. “Law cannot standstill… it must change with changing social concepts and values.”[33]
[1] R v. Ahluwalia, [1992] 4 All ER 889.
[2] Claire Houstan, How Feminist Theory Became (Criminal) Law: Tracing The Path To Mandatory Criminal Intervention In Domestic Violence Cases, 21 MICH. J.GENDER & L. 217 (2014).
[3] Lenore Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome, 16.
[4] Lenore Walker, The Battered Woman Syndrome, 45 (Harper, 1980).
[5] Lenore Walker, supra note 4, at 95-104.
[6] Id.
[7] Michael R. Slaughter, The Battered Woman syndrome and self-defense, 1 WOMEN’SL.J. 78(1997).
[8] Edward W. Gondolf & Ellen R. Fisher, battered woman as survivor: an alternative to treat learned.
[9] Evan Stark, coercive control: the entrapment of woman in personal life, 137-139.
[10] Martha R. Mahoney, legal images of battered woman, redefining the issue of separation, 90 Mich.L.Rev.1, (1991).
[11] Lenore Walker, the battered woman syndrome, (4th ed., 2016).
[12] Id at page 2-3.
[13] Suyambukkani v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 LW (CRI.) 86.
[14] Id at 21.
[15]Lenore Walker, Who are Battered Woman? , 2(1) Frontiers: A Journal ofWomen’sStudies52-57 (1997).
[16] Malliga v. State, 1997 SCC ONLINE MAD 787.
[17] Meera v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 SCC ONLINE REAJ 821.
[18] Champa Rani Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 10 SCC 608.
[19] State v. Leidholm, 334 NW 2d 811 (ND 1983).
[20] Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2003) 2 SCC 661.
[21] Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (1980) 2 SCC 218.
[22]Pen. Code, No. 45 of 1860, India Code (1860), http://indiacode.nic.in, § 300 explanation 1:
“When culpable homicide is not murder: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.”
[23] K.M.Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra,AIR 1962 SC 605.
[24]Id. At page 85
[25] 1995 SCC OnLine Mad 314.
[26] AIR 1962 SC 605
[27] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 498A.
[28] (2013) SCC ONLINE GAU 207.
[29] (1992) 4 ALL ER 889.
[30] SUPRA NOTE 29 AT PAGE 116.
[31] (2016) 228 DLT 1(DB).
[32] Aishwariya Deb, battered woman syndrome prospect of situating it within criminal law in India, Social science research network.
[33] 293 national textile workers union v. P R Ramakrishnan, 1983 3 SCC.
YLCC would like to thank Ridhi Jain for her valuable insights in this article.
