NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW

RANCHI

LAW OF CRIMES I

BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME AS A DEFENCE: WHEN

TO RECOGNIZE IT?

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR JULIAN SEAL PASARI PIYUSH KUMAR CHOUBEY
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SEMESTER IV (SECTION B)
CRIMINAL LAW ROLL NO. 1184

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

RESEARCH PROBLEM ............................................................................................................. 3

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................... 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 4

BATTERED WOMAN/NALLATHANGAL SYNDROME .................................................................. 5

RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENCE .................................................................................................. 8

PROVOCATION ....................................................................................................................... 9

USE OF DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY ................................................................................... 11

NECESSITY .......................................................................................................................... 12

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS ......................................................................................... 13

2|Page
 RESEARCH PROBLEM
Whether or not our country fails to recognise the Battered Women Syndrome as a defence
under Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Whether or not an amendment to the existing exceptions, and framing a new one generally or
under section 300 of IPC would help the people suffering from the Battered Women Syndrome
in taking a plea of defence of the crime committed?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
To understand the Battered Woman Syndrome with respect to Indian Penal Code, 1860?

To analyse whether the Battered Woman Syndrome should be added as a defence under IPC?

To unearth the amendments that can be suggested to amend IPC and insert the battered Woman
Syndrome as a defence.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Research Methodology adopted by the researcher for this research study is Doctrinal
Method.
The type of study of this research work is Explanatory Study and the researcher would be
relying on the existing literature like books, journals, websites and other sources for the data
and completion of the project.

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION
Battered Women Syndrome -- this theory was propounded by Dr. Lenore Walker which
explains why battered women continue to stay in abusive relationships and why they may be
compelled to kill their partners despite other options of escape ostensibly available to them 1.
Though in India it is more often recognised as the Nallathangal Syndrome rather than Battered
Women Syndrome, most other countries recognise it by the latter name. She wanted to describe
the unique patterns of behaviour which a woman goes through physically and mentally that can
develop when a person experiences abuse and they try to find ways in order to survive it.
According to Walker, the patterns of behaviour are mostly due to PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder). There are certain countries like UK, Australia, New Zealand and certain states of
USA which recognise this theory and research has shown that battered women are allowed to
use force as a self-defence to protect themselves and sometimes during threatening situations,
they can kill their spouses if they are abused to the extent of protecting themselves, acting in
good faith and honest belief that there is no other way to escape the situation.

There is an entire cycle of abuse which Walker had discovered while studying this theory
known as the “Walker Cycle Theory” which has three stages:

 Tension Building Stage: This is the first phase where the verbal fights between the man
and the woman starts2.
 Acute Battering Stage: This is where the husband (batterer) is filled with uncontrollable
anger.
 Love Contrition: The final stage where the husband apologises to his wife and promises
to never do it again.

According to Walker, battered women, having no control over their abusive situation, gradually
become passive and believe that it is impossible to escape, even when escape is objectively a
possibility. The drive and determination to get out of the situation or the relationship
diminishes. Bound by socio-economic factors beyond their control, these women are trapped
within the cycle of violence3. Further, Battered Women Syndrome (herein after referred to as
BWS) creates a sense of helplessness in battered women, where they believe that legal

1
Lenore E Walker, “The Battered Women Syndrome” Harper (1980).
2
Id.
3
Bess Rothenberg, “We don’t have time for Social Change”, Cultural Compromise and the Battered Women
Syndrome, Gender& Soc’y (2003).

4|Page
recourses will fail them4. Hopelessness and “learned helplessness” may lead battered women
to consider the death of the abuser to be a final and clear solution to their vicious cycle of
violence5. Not all battered women kill their abusive partners to escape the relationship.
However, it is critical to note the differences between battered women who are compelled to
kill and those who do not kill are grounded in the man’s behaviour as opposed to that of the
woman6. The frequency and severity of violence that a battered woman has had to endure
determines whether a battered woman is compelled to kill her abusive partner7. Thus, “learned
helplessness”, depression and self-preservation may compel a battered woman to kill her
abusive partner, depending on the sensitivity of the situation.

BATTERED WOMAN/NALLATHANGAL SYNDROME

In India, BWS is not legally recognised but Nallathangal Syndrome is recognised which is
equivalent to the former. “Nallathangal Syndrome” is based on the Nallathangal ballad, an
ancient piece of Tamil literature. The ballad narrates the heart wrenching trials and tribulations
of a rich lady who succumbs to unfathomable and agonising misery due to unexpected poverty
and commits suicide along with her children to escape the misery. It was first legally recognised
by the Madras High Court. Using the Nallathangal ballad, the Madras High Court
conceptualised “Nallathangal Syndrome” for women who are coerced to commit suicide and
kill their kids to escape the misery of the violence they are subjected to. Later, the Guwahati
High Court in an important judgment of Manju Lakra v State of Assam8 set a benchmark
wherein the accused Manju Lakra was a victim of domestic violence by her husband and due
to the torture done to her over the years, she killed her husband by snatching the piece of wood
from him and beating him down. The Judge here though did not convict her for murder but
rather culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This was quite a landmark judgment as
provocation was used as a defence and the mental condition of the accused was taken into
consideration recognising it as a Syndrome and giving her the benefit of the doubt. Though a
lot of Courts do not recognise it and the women is often given the punishment of spending few
years in jail, The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 recognises a lot of offences and crimes faces

4
Id.
5
Michael R. Slaughter, “The Battered Woman Syndrome and Self Defence” Women’s L.J. 78 (1997).
6
Lenore E. Walker, “Who are Battered Women?” Frontier: A Journal of Women’s Studies 52-57 (1997).
7
Id.
8
Manju Lakra v. State of Assam (2013) SCC Gau 207.

5|Page
by women like honour killing, rape etc. but it fails to recognise battered women and is
considered as a trivial matter. Even official statistics for crimes in India do not account for it9.

Though we debate about feminism and biasedness towards a particular gender, being one of
the loopholes of our judiciary system the benefit of doubt is often given to men and their
conditions are taken in consideration while sentencing them. For instance, during cases of
Adultery, if a man who is the husband of the wife who has committed the Adultery kills his
wife, then the Court has taken into consideration factors like jealousy and sense of
possessiveness10. This itself violates Article 14 of our Constitution as well as Article 21
wherein the women’s personal liberty has been crushed down and their Right to Life has been
endangered by their husband.

The psychology and the reason behind why they do not leave their spouses despite the torture
is more to do with the society we live in and the conditioning given to us. In most of the cases,
the woman loves her husband and is not ready to leave him but rather blames herself for not
keeping the spouse happy and she carries the entire emotional burden and responsibility of the
family with her. Right from the start women and men are told about what kind of
responsibilities each have to perform without even thinking about what an individual is capable
of doing before even considering his/her gender. Though the reality is hard hitting; but due to
our culture and insecurities, they do not even get support from women who are they familiar
with, for instance, their own family member or even her friend, blaming her for the same. There
are some theorists who argue that the use of Battered Women Syndrome, as presented by an
expert witness, poses the danger of encouraging Courts to find the women mentally ill, with
the consequence that the women’s own psychological condition, rather than the underlying
social conditions, will be blamed. This inculpation of women being mentally ill results in the
strengthening of the stereotype of women as irrational and emotional.

Additionally, this presumption, if accepted by the Court, results in the women being put away
in a mental institution indefinitely11. USA did a survey of Battered Women and the reasons
behind them not leaving their spouses. Many battered women stay in abusive relationships says
Deb Hirschhorn, PhD, a marriage and family therapist based in Woodmere, New York, and
author of “The Healing Is Mutual”. The reasons include:

9
NCRB, “Motives of Murder and Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder During 2015”, NATIONAL
CRIME RECORDS BUREAU (2015), http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2015/FILES/Table%20 3.2.pdf.
10
Raghavan Achari v. State of Kerala (1993) Supp (1) SCC 719.
11
Paramita Nandy, “Battered Women Syndrome” SSRN, (2010) available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1689521.

6|Page
  She may come from a background of abuse and “is conditioned to look for the good in
her partner just as she had to see the good in her parents”.
 She truly believes her spouse or partner wants to help her. “It’s a rescue syndrome.”
The battered woman remembers why she fell in love with her partner and believes they
can get back to where they began, Walker says.
 She is likely to have low self-esteem. She believes she is only getting what she deserves.
 She might also fear that if her partner learns that she wants to leave, it will heighten the
abuse, says Rena Pollak, LMFT, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Encino,
California12.

When Dr. Lenore Walker was studying, during those three years, she had met with 400 women
in order to understand the psychology behind the same. This study had shown that battered
women had common characteristics they shared including low self-esteem, a traditional
upbringing and stereotypical behaviour about marriage and severe stress reactions. She is also
likely to have been raised in a house where their family members were subjected to domestic
violence13. As a battered woman continues to experience abuse regardless of her attempts to
prevent it, she becomes pessimistic about the likelihood of ending the abuse, grows
increasingly depressed and eventually loses her will to escape This psychology warps the
battered woman’s evaluation of the situation and effectively imprisons her in the abusive
relationship as she shifts her focus solely to a survival strategy rather than attempting to escape
or end her abuse14. Walker suggests that women kill their abusers out of frustration and fear.
Walker interviewed a few women and what she witnessed was that the battered women thought
or lived with the belief that no one would take them seriously and no one would even come to
save them when they get abused. They used to get angry before attacking, and they could not
recollect on how they were agitated to kill the abuser and thought there was no other way to
escape it. Other women attacked their abusers in a “desperate attempt to keep [the abuser] from
gaining total control of their minds” as well as their bodies15. Overall, Walker’s data suggest
that the women “all resorted to physical violence as their last attempt at protecting themselves
from further physical and mental harm.16” Walker notes several factors which are common in
certain women who are abused while she was hypnotising them. One of the reasons is their

12
Beth Orenstein, “Understanding Battered Women Syndrome” (2014),
https://www.everydayhealth.com/news/understanding-battered-womens-syndrome/.
13
Id. at 01
14
Id.
15
Id.
16
Id.

7|Page
children who stay with them and are exposed to such a volatile atmosphere and therefore the
women become quite vulnerable if they get threatened by the abuser himself. The abusers’
threats to kill the woman, or to find her if she leaves, increase her fear of a deadly attack and
similarly, increase the risk of a violent response. Finally, it appears that a deadly response by
the woman is more likely to occur later in the relationship when the severity of abuse
escalates17.

RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENCE

Private Defence can be used as a tool by the battered women under their circumstances but,
private defence can only be used to a certain extent mentioned from Section 90 to 106. The
four essential characteristics to be satisfied for a successful plea of private defence are: i) To
believe that the defendant was in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm ii) Use of
reasonable amount of force to counter the threatened danger iii) Defendant cannot be the
aggressor iv) No opportunity to retreat safely.18 The application of private defence is not
considered feasible because the facts of battered women who kill their partners do not fall under
the traditional concept of self-defence. For example, sometimes a battered woman kills her
abuser after the attack has ended or at a time when there is no kind of threat or provocation19.
Along with that, one of the arguments used by the petitioners is the use of reasonable force by
the women, especially after the act has been done is an abuse of private defence and also, they
questioned about why did they not leave their partners if they had been abused for so long20.
Section 100 of the IPC states when the right of private defence of the body extends to death, it
has four ingredient conditions in order to exercise the use of private defence. In one of the cases
of Arjun v State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that private defence extending to
voluntary causing of death is available only if accused shows that there were circumstances
giving rise to reasonable grounds for apprehending that either death or grievous hurt would be
caused to him. The burden of proof remains on the women to prove „reasonable apprehension‟
which is firstly subjective from case to case as it has not been clearly defined nor does it include
any specific meaning for the same. If we consider the circumstances of the women who were
battered and their mental conditions, this defence can be used to protect them to a certain extent.

17
Id.
18
The Indian Penal Code 1860.
19
State v. Leidholm, [1983] 334 NW 2d 811.
20
Lenore E. Walker et al, “Beyond the Juror’s Ken: Battered Women” 7 Vermont L.J 1-5 (1982).

8|Page
Though proving it within reasonable apprehension requires proper evidence and therefore,
sometimes judges do not agree with the concept. Though the benefit of the doubt could be
given to them or at least instead of penalising them under section 302 of IPC, they should be
given an exemption of culpable homicide not amounting to murder considering their
circumstances. The omission to walk out of the relationship is treated as an argument in favour
of the use of an unreasonable amount of force because the woman did not utilise the opportunity
to retreat safely21. But in certain US cases, private defence has been taken into consideration.
One of the relevant cases is State v Wanrow,22 wherein the Supreme Court of Washington
considered the circumstances of the defendant as well. According to the Court, while taking
the practical approach it was important to put ourselves into the shoes of the defendant and
therefore any person in her place would have reacted that way if she is in fear, hence satisfying
the ingredients of private defence.

PROVOCATION
This is one of the most important and common defence used by a battered woman in a murder
charge. Under Section 300 of the IPC, the first exemption talks about when the culpable
homicide does not amount to murder. It is a partial defence that may work in favour of the
defendant which may result into culpable homicide not amounting to murder especially in
India23. The essentials of the traditional defence of provocation are similar in UK and India,
but the defence has evolved differently in the UK eventually leading to its replacement with
the defence of loss of self-control24. The offence committed amounts to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder in India if the offender loses his or her power over self-control due to a
grave and sudden provocation25. In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra26, the Supreme
Court laid down guidelines for what constitutes „grave and sudden‟ provocation, which are as
follows: 1. Whether a reasonable man from the same class of society would lose his self-control
in a similarly placed situation; 2. Words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances,

21
R. v. Kiranjit Ahluwalia, [1993] 96 Cr App R 133.
22
State v. Wanrow, [1977] 88 Wn. 2d 221.
23
Id. at 18.
24
Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s 25 (54),
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/pdfs/ukpga_20090025_en.pdf; Kate Fitz-Gibbon, „Replacing
Provocation in England and Wales: Examining the Partial Defence of Loss of Contro‟ 40(2) J.L. & SOC‟Y
280-305.
25
Id. at 18.
26
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961) AIR 1962 SC 605.

9|Page
cause „grave and sudden‟ provocation; 3. The mental state of the accused due to a previous act
of the victim may be considered to determine whether the ant act provoked the accused to
commit the offence; 4. The offence committed should be rooted back to an act of passion and
not occur after a lapse of time. From the analysis so far, the concerns with the traditional
definition of provocation are discernible. Acknowledging the problems with the „grave and
sudden‟ criteria, Courts have introduced the defence of „sustained provocation‟ within the
wider ambit of provocation27. In fact, Indian Courts adopted the theory of sustained provocation
before the Australian or English Courts. English Courts adopted this principle only later, as
„cumulative provocation, ‟ within their criminal jurisprudence. The first Court to give
recognition to this syndrome as Nallathangal Syndrome was the Madras High Court wherein
the Court reduced the sentence of on abused woman who was compelled to commit suicide
along with her children who jumped into the well but survived as her husband was torturing
them. The District Court convicted her of murder and attempt to suicide but the Madras High
Court in an appeal reduced her sentence understanding her circumstances because it is not
always the person herself but also her surroundings which make her do such acts. Even in the
case of Manju Lakra, the Guwahati High Court gave the judgment taking cognizance of the
offence which constituted grave and sudden provocation. Further, an interesting observation in
this judgment is the analogy drawn between the offence of dowry death as prescribed under
Section 304B of the IPC28, and battered women who kill their abusive partners. The Court
pondered over the possibility that though it is not improbable for circumstances to lead a
woman to attempt suicide, it is equally probable that instead of causing harm to herself, she
commits an act of aggression towards the aggressor29. Though sudden provocation could be
used as a defence but rather it could be a disadvantage for the battered women as battering is a
long and continuous process over the years so therefore, it would be difficult to specify the loss
of “self-control”. The provocation is sustained over a long period of time as due to isolation;
this provocation gets more deep-rooted. She does not immediately lose her self-control so
therefore a sustained provocation should be included as a part of it. In conclusion, the Court
held that if the law recognises that a battered wife may commit suicide due to her surrounding
circumstances, it should also recognise that proximate surroundings may cause her to kill the
batterer. If a woman were to put an end to her life instead of that of her husband, her husband

27
Poovammal v. State of T.N. (2012) SCC Mad 489; Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498.
28
The Indian Penal Code 1890, s 45.
29
Manju Lakra v. State of Assam (2013) SCC Gau 207.

10 | P a g e
would have been charged with dowry death and here, the intention was more to end the
continuing acts of violence, rather than to kill her husband or seek vengeance. Thus, a victim
becoming an aggressor due to surrounding circumstances would be within the ambit of
sustained provocation causing “grave and sudden provocation” and would hence, be held liable
for culpable homicide amounting to murder30.

USE OF DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY

In India, as BWS has not been recognised, it cannot be used as a self-defence in most of the
cases. The use of diminished responsibility has been highly criticised by the feminist scholars.
The gravity of the consequences of using this defence is evident in that the women who plead
successfully to this defence could be designated “mentally ill” and be detained in an institution
or be put on probation. The principle of diminished responsibility is not applicable in India.
Insanity is the only equivalent defence available, which is grounded in the archaic M’Naghten
rules31. Moreover, the application of insanity for battered women who kill their partners has
not been explored in India. The test for insanity is to prove that the defendant is suffering from
severe mental illness due to which he or she is incapable of appreciating the nature of the crime.
The law differentiates between “legal insanity” and “medical insanity”, and considers only
“legal insanity” for application of insanity. Thus, merely suffering from a mental disorder, or
weak intellect and emotions due to physical and mental ailments is not sufficient ground to
attract the defence32. Interestingly, the High Court of Karnataka has criticised the limitations
of the defence of insanity in Sunil Sandeep v. State of Karnataka33. It held that the rigidity of
the M’Naghten rules falls short of the modern knowledge of psychiatry and that there may be
cases where the accused knows the “nature and quality of the act” and yet commits the act due
to an “irresistible impulse” by reason of mental defect or deficiency. However, the Supreme
Court of India does not recognise the test of “irresistible impulse” and restricts insanity to
M'Naghten rules. Further, while certain High Courts in India have acknowledged the principle
of diminished responsibility as applicable in English Law in cases of mercy killing34, or
battered women killing their abusive partners35, none have gone so far as to apply the principle

30
Id.
31
M‟Naghten rules were laid down in M‟Naghten case: (1843-1860) All ER Rep 229: 8 ER 718.
32
Bapu v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 8 SCC 66.
33
Sunil Sandeep v. State of Karnataka (1993) SCC Kar 63.
34
Siddheswari Bora v. State of Assam (1981) SCC Gau 39.
35
Id. at 30.

11 | P a g e
of diminished responsibility explicitly in the Indian context. However, the application of
defence of insanity for battered women is highly problematic. It would imply that battered
women are incapable of appreciating the nature of crime due to their mental condition and the
threshold is much higher compared to that of diminished responsibility. To use the defence of
insanity or irresistible insanity is a misrepresentation of battered women who are compelled to
kill their partners because they appreciate the nature of the crime, and are forced to do so for
their own protection. They believe that their lives are in grave danger due to which it is
necessary to kill their partners to escape the violence. In the Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
BWS is not recognised and ironically the women (accused) are recognised as perpetrators and
rather not as victims of abuse, making it a clinical approach. The mental health and the trauma
that the victim has gone through have not been taken into consideration at all. The murder
committed by the battered women is most of the times in the heat of the moment and out of
sheer frustration and the inability to bear the torture anymore which she must have experienced
for a very long time. Unfortunately, the focus of the judiciary shifts for the actions of the
batterer and what he has done for the past few years rather than declaring the women abnormal
or mentally weak. In spite of the criticism, there is a need for the law and Courts to be receptive
towards BWS. Domestic violence is a deeply socially ingrained phenomenon, and battered
women are trapped in violent relationships due to failed institutional responses36. Until this is
resolved, it is necessary to address systemic issues accompanying domestic violence37. Thus,
there is a need to reinterpret the existing defences to take into account situations of battered
women attacking their partners. It is extremely necessary for the legislatures to restructure our
laws so that women suffering from this syndrome are identified under a particular category and
the approach to deal with them would be different.

NECESSITY
The defence of necessity is provided in section 81 of IPC which deals with acts likely to cause
harm, but done without criminal intent and in order to prevent other harm to persons or
property. The essence of this defence is choosing the lesser harm in good faith when faced with
an impending choice in a situation of endangerment. It recognizes that the violation of a certain
rule, such as not committing murder, is desirable in certain situations but this defence is

36
Rebecca D. Cornia, “Current Use of Battered Women Syndrome: Institutionalization of Negative Stereotypes
About Women” 8 Women’s L.J. 99-101 (1997)
37
Id.

12 | P a g e
circumscribed by the requirement that there exists a reasonable causal link between the act and
the harm sought to be averted. In Reniger v. Fogosia, Pollard J. held that the law privileges acts
done against the letter but not the spirit of the law, and thus, endorsed the maxim, “quod
necessitas non habet legem” which means that necessity knows no law. The defence is however
circumscribed by the condition that the accused must honestly believe on reasonable grounds
that he was in a situation of imminent peril. The test presently being employed looks at whether
a reasonable man would consider an alternative to avoid peril. This defence therefore presents
problems with respect to defining the choices available to a battered woman in the relationship.
It is often argued that necessity cannot be pleaded as a defence since the choice of not leaving
was made by the victim herself. In State v. Allery, the battered wife had divorced her husband
and left the home. One evening, when she returned home, she found her husband in her living
room. As he threatened to kill her, the wife, Sherry, loaded a shotgun and killed him. The
Appeals Court rejected the claim of self-defence, since she had a duty to retreat from the home.
Such reasoning fails to consider the severity of the threat and the woman’s situation where not
killing her husband would perpetually keep her in fear. It must also be remembered that while,
ostensibly, the woman has the physical capacity to leave the home, she cannot, in fact, do so.
There are primarily two reasons for the same. The first kind is due to the fear created by the
threats of the batterer which involve harm being caused to the woman herself or her children.
The second is based on the logistical hurdles to taking such a step. A woman may not have any
form of employment or support to be financially independent. The problem is compounded in
the Indian context by the social expectation of marriage from a woman which leads to
ineffective community responses when a woman seeks intervention. She is expected to bear
the pain and remain married for the sake of the family. These factors make it near to impossible
for a woman to walk out of an abusive marriage. Faced with staying bound to her husband and
the need for survival, she may have no choice but to kill her batterer. Moreover, as Sherry’s
case demonstrates, even leaving the home may not be enough to be free of the batterer but may
end up inviting further violence.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

In India, our legislature and judiciary have not yet moved further from Nallathangal Syndrome
and the only defence the battered women have is provocation. A reformative approach by the
Court should be taken into consideration for the battered women rather than a deterrent one.

13 | P a g e
Even in cases now when the Courts are sentencing such women, at least a proper therapist
needs to be there with her so that she gets the proper treatment for this trauma. They need to
start taking into account, the actions of the batterer and the trauma as well as the mental
condition of the woman which led her to kill her husband. Along with this, the benefit of the
doubt about self-defence needs to be given to them. Though under the Indian Penal Code, there
is a certain amount of extent to which self-defence can be used to defend yourself, but here the
person committing the offence did not have a choice rather out of fear and trauma and the
emotional and physical abuse carried by her over the years has resulted her to take these
extreme measures to protect herself from getting tortured again. She should be identified as the
victim and not the convict. Exception 1 to section 300 of IPC which deals with grave and
sudden provocation can be amended to add the following explanation: “For the purpose of this
exception, when the accused is shown to have suffered from repeated long-term physical and
psychological abuse, the entire period of abuse may constitute a period of provocation.” section
100 of IPC which provides for situations where the right of private defence of the body, extends
to the causing of death, can be amended to add the following two explanations for all six
clauses: “(1) An apprehension of danger may be reasonable even when based on acts of assault
that are recurrent in nature. (2) The alleged act must be proportional to the apprehended act in
the view of the accused.” This makes the test for determining the proportionality of a response
a subjective one which is more suited to a battered woman’s mental state. The two explanations
essentially allow immediacy and proportionality to be determined from the perspective of the
person exercising this right. The other aspect of this could be that this syndrome should be
included as a part of the Mental Health Act. BWS is a sub category of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) which needs to be recognised and acknowledged. Amendments need to be
made and a proper structure about what kinds of illnesses would qualify under the act and what
treatments should be available to the aggrieved people should be incorporated. Along with that,
people who suffer such mental illnesses should be tried or punished in ways different from
other people. Adding to that, the restorative justice approach has been a debatable topic for a
long time but when it comes to implementation, there is no proper system or structure which
could fall into place. The executive wing of our system has failed to deliver and apply these
suggestions time and again made by researchers, scholars and legislatures with regard to the
reformative as well as restorative approach for the offenders or at least providing them with
basic medical assistance after that are convicted to reform them and give them a chance to be
a part of the society. Lastly, as a society, we need to start and make changes by first accepting

14 | P a g e
such women rather than judging them or making them feel guilty and unworthy. If we as a
society fail to accept it, it reflects nothing short of a scar on the face of humanity.

15 | P a g e