Open Access Research Article
REGINA V. AHLUWALIA CASE (1992): THE MOVIE ‘PROVOKED’ BY: ADITI SINGH
Published Paper
Article Details
REGINA V. AHLUWALIA CASE (1992): THE
MOVIE ‘PROVOKED’
AUTHORED BY: ADITI SINGH
Provoked directed by Jag Mundhra, is
based on Circle Of Life: The Autobiography of Kiranjit Ahluwalia, which deals
with Regina v. Ahluwalia case (1992), the monumental court case which seemed to
have the power to modify the English law. It was one of the most important
domestic violence cases after which some of the legal terms like provocation
and loss of control were redefined. Battered woman‘s syndrome was also accepted
as a legal state of mind after this case.
On the night of 9th May 1989,
Kiranjit in response to her husband’s attack snapped and killed her husband by
setting him on fire after enduring severe physical, mental and sexual abuse for
almost 10 years.[1] She was found guilty of murder and was
awarded life imprisonment. But in the retrial, there were three grounds of
appeal which were provocation, battered woman’s syndrome and diminished
responsibility.
As held in R. v. Duff,[2]
provocation was defined as an act which can cause sudden and temporary loss of
self-control of a reasonable man; it is a situation when a person for a moment
is not the master of his or her mind. This precedent was used as one of the
grounds of appeal by the defendant which was not taken into consideration by
the court which according to me was a failure on their part. The precedent, in
this case, should have been used because the level or intensity of provocation
was of a different kind. The right to protect one’s person and property from
injury is one of the criteria for self-defence but this is not applicable in
this case as the threat was not imminent. The question of what is the ‘cooling
down period’ for such an abuse which took place over 10 years is a hard one to
answer. When a woman is abused for so long opposite effect of time lapse could
have taken place and so we can say that immediate loss of self-control reaction
to being changed to ‘slow-burn’.[3]
The anger, fear and frustration of being provoked for 10 years had been
bubbling up after which she had a sudden break down only by thinking of the
consequence of defying his order or the torture which she will have to go
through and the consistent use of violence against her clearly indicates that
it was not an empty threat.[4] So the definition of ‘cooling down period’
should have been reviewed.
The way legal terms are defined and how they
are interpreted is a major concern. We can say that the jury’s verdict was on
the basis of the realist school of jurisprudence which means applying the law
as the court defines it but according to me purposive interpretation of the
currents facts must also be taken into perspective. As Hart explains that
intuitive response classifies law as norms and should be kept aside as moral
norms and black letter law should be treated as the penumbra of the law where
the core of law always has the possibility of interpreting and reinterpreting
the penumbra. It means that law is in some ways should be flexible. The judge
here can be said to be the ivory tower as he is deciding such a case even
without being in such a situation himself.
House of Lords in Director of Public
Prosecutions v. Camplin[5]
states that the question of whether the provocation is enough or not for a
reasonable man to do as he did should be determined by the jury. The question
related to whether she was a reasonable person after being physically, mentally
and sexually abused for 10 years should have been given more importance as
endogenous depression which is a type of depressive disorder was detected in
her case. Psychological problems should be taken into account as they cause one
to be distressed or impair personal functioning. The fact that her medical
condition and omission to mention the ‘learned helplessness' which means one
becomes helpless in avoiding a negative situation was not taken into
consideration in the first trial was a failure on the defendant’s part. It was
considered in retrial as ‘battered woman‘s syndrome’ which resulted in her
conviction for manslaughter.
The judge knows the law which is for
the society but is the society itself aware of them? Law treats everyone
equally but the awareness of it is not the same. The fact that she was tortured
and did not leave her husband could have been due to lack of knowledge, lack of
resources and factor of monetary dependence. When she was asked why she did not
leave her husband the reason she gave was that she felt a sense of duty towards
her husband and was thinking about her sons. The reason of sense of duty as a
wife can be seen as societal stigma or whether according to societal norms
divorce is moral. The importance of morality in law is questioned here.
We can see in the movie that the
mother-in-law and the constable gave false testimony which amounts to perjury.
The testimony was influenced which makes us question the credibility of people
and how means influence the end results. Here the corruption affected a human
life so how just is the process of law? She was freed from her husband’s jail
but was now put in the jail of law.[6]
And when the south hall black sisters
worker unlawfully bring Kiranjit‘s children to meet her by illegally producing
a court order for the mother-in-law, misleading conduct is identified. Here
according to the letter of law, she should be held guilty but when we focus on
the spirit of law we can say that this action was required to enable her to
find strength and hope in her life and a chance at rehabilitation.
Even after witnessing such a case of
marital rape,[7] it is
still not considered a criminal offense. Here the functioning of the
legislature can be questioned. Law should not only be made in retrospective but
also in a prospective manner. As domestic violence is a common problem in
India, something must be done about addressing the issue of marital rape. So
that the future generations of women are safe from the abuse of power at the
hands of their spouse and are not prisoners to depression for the rest of their
life. It is only fair that they do not undergo the trauma of rape by someone
who is supposed to be your life partner. Such a provision can be tricky as it
could challenge the sanctity of marriage as an institution and is a claim that
will be very hard to prove since the activity takes place inside the privacy of
a couple’s bedroom.
In my opinion, this movie poses
several very important questions that are extremely relevant to our current
societal setup but the question that is of utmost importance is how the law
should be interpreted and then implemented so that the outcome is just and fair
which is something we are actively trying to find answers to both with the
revisions in the legislation of our country and in our legal methods class. The
movie also hints at the idea of reintegration of previously convicted people
into the society when in the last scene, our protagonist is seen sending her
children to school after having served her sentence and how it could be
interpreted as a new chapter of freedom in her life.
[1] R v Ahluwalia [1992] 4
All ER 889
He
died after 6 days and she was indicted for murder. In her first trial, she
pleaded manslaughter because she had no intention to kill him and she just
wanted him to feel the pain. But having bought caustic soda and the petrol
before had was enough evidence to consider it malicious. She also pleaded
provocation as a ground for defense but the jury rejected it as the danger was
not immediate and according to them the Kiranjit had a reasonable amount of
cooling down period.
[3] LawTeacher. November 2013. R v
Ahluwalia - 1992. [online]. Available from:
https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-ahluwalia.php?vref=1 [Accessed 4 October
2018].
[4] Deepak had threatened Kiranjit two
hours before the incident that he would make her suffer if she did not give him
the money by the next day.
[5] House of Lords in Director of
Public Prosecutions v. Camplin (1978) 67 Cr. App. R. 14. Section 3 of the
Homicide Act
[6] She wrote this in a letter which
was read aloud in the movie ‘Provoked’ 2006
[7] According to section 375 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC), marital rape is a crime only when the wife is below 16
years of age. But for the protection of such women, we do have Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005) but we still need a strong defence for
such tortured wives.
Article Information
REGINA V. AHLUWALIA CASE (1992): THE MOVIE ‘PROVOKED’ BY: ADITI SINGH
Authors: ADITI SINGH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/12
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.