By – Vinod Dixit

In most of the cases, criminal liability depends on freedom of choice but in some cases, it depends on deterministic considerations. However, in some cases, though liability depends on freedom of choice, it is diminished on deterministic reasons. There are some situations where liability should be diminished but it is not. Battered women and poverty are some of such areas where liability is statutorily not diminished. In this paper we propose to discuss some cases of battered women whose liability was diminished by judiciary by alternative legal rules, appealing to the Executive for clemency or re-interpretation of law. In this paper we shall discuss only cases involving battered women, who were given some relief in sentencing, notwithstanding the fact that there is neither full nor qualified exemption in statutorily provisions. What effect the perpetual humiliation of a woman by a person standing in close relation has, on her mind and behaviour, became subject matter of study by psychologists long after most of the cases discussed here have been decided, yet most of the judges in the period preceding psychological studies, understood the repercussions, which is caused on battered woman mind and behaviour. Neither the Indian legislature nor judiciary did anything positive to make battered woman syndrome and poverty a mitigating circumstance while deciding the culpability of the accused.

Keywords: Battered Women, Battered Woman Syndrome, Determinism and Freedom of Choice, Grave and Sudden Provocation, Pure reason.