Female criminality: A lesser-addressed dimension of the criminal justice system
The alleged unfortunate homicide of Ketan Agarwal has brought the debate surrounding the actors and factors of the criminal justice system to every nook and corner of our nation. Ketan was visiting Lohagad Fort, a scenic spot popular with tourists and trekkers, with his fiancée, Siya Goyal, when he fell into a ditch. Days later, police arrested Siya, 20, and her friend, Chetan Chaudhary, 22, alleging that they murdered Agarwal by pushing him from a height. The alleged motive for this murder was that Ketan was to be married to Siya, though she was clandestinely in a relationship with Chetan. In this particular case, a pattern appears that is similar to other recent incidents in which neither Siya nor Chetan had a criminal record prior to this alleged crime. Their alleged participation and the subsequent public response warrant a thoughtful examination of pertinent questions regarding female criminality.
Societal expectations towards females always seek to create an ideal woman. This notion is challenged when a woman is involved in a particularly heinous crime that involves the killing of her to be husband. As a result, when the criminal justice system puts a woman on trial, we see that the house of justice is marked by two parallel trials. One is the justice system, which is formally designed to conduct a trial, and the second is the media trial. Here, deterministic answers are sought about the mores of society which have been broken by the acts of perpetrators at all levels, including those of the accused and of womanhood itself.
Considering the wider outcry around the question of female involvement in the crime, there is a need to examine the theoretical framework for understanding and explaining female criminality and the pathology surrounding the deviant acts of women perpetrators. There is also a need to ensure parity and fairness in the treatment of female offenders compared with their male counterparts so that justice must not succumb to any kind of sexist ideology. The very idea of women being cross-examined elicits indignation among stakeholders and justice entrepreneurs globally. Further, the criminal justice system is accustomed to viewing women as victims, and society still struggles to accept that women can also be perpetrators. As a result, when a woman is involved in a homicide case, it often attracts disproportionate public attention. Therefore, when women are accused of serious violence, it challenges not only criminal law but also deeply rooted social expectations. However, a dominant discourse on female criminality, propagated by Pollock, argues that females have an equally strong deviant character, and their methods differ from those of their male counterparts. He argues that it is rooted in manipulation, deceit, and treachery, whereas male criminality is predominantly rooted in physical force. Many landmark cases in criminal law, especially those related to murder, involve male perpetrators. A notable example is the case of South African athlete Oscar Pistorius, who was convicted of killing his girlfriend, claiming he mistakenly believed an intruder was present. In the recent case of the killing of Shraddha Walkar, after killing her, her body was kept in a freezer. Such a narrative portrays males as the primary perpetrators of crime. However, it overlooks female criminality in the current context, in which no gender has a monopoly over deviant behaviour. To substantiate women’s role in violent crimes, a few cases are important, showing how violent crime can be committed through deceitful means. Within this context, Battered Women’s Syndrome (BWS) emerged as one of the most influential developments in criminal law. This challenges the stereotype that women are inherently nonviolent, showing that women may use violence as a means of emancipation from prolonged domestic abuse, eventually resorting to lethal violence against their abusers. So, violence could also be a tool to equalise and at times it is an act of rebellion.
Recently, in Kerala, a daughter-in-law killed six of her husband’s relatives by administering cyanide. In another case, Shabnam, along with her lover, killed seven relatives after administering sleeping pills. Mamta Pathak was convicted of murder for electrocuting her husband.
In the recent Sonam Shillong case, the husband was killed in Shillong and the whole episode was again allegedly planned with the active mental participation of the woman, who was not so much in the physical aspect of the act. In all these cases, one thing is apparent: female criminality is not based on physical aspects. They are a clear sign of treachery. Killing by poison, electrocuting, and hiring an assassin shows that women are capable of committing crimes in their own ways.
It is important to realise here that society finds female criminality shocking because it challenges traditional gender stereotypes. Deviance is often viewed as masculine. The female body is often regarded as sacred and, in many ways, perceived as incapable of committing heinous crimes. When a man commits murder, society typically views him simply as a man who has killed someone. In contrast, when a woman commits the same act, it tends to be viewed in a more complex manner, eliciting a range of emotional reactions that probe the collective conscience.
If gender becomes a basis for justice, it undermines the notion of justice as impartial and objective. In the current case, equality before the law demands more than recognising women as victims. It requires criminal justice professionals to understand that a person can be both a victim and a perpetrator, regardless of gender. Until our public conversations integrate these possibilities, every woman accused of murder will continue to face two trials: one in court and another in the court of public opinion.
Crime can be committed regardless of gender. A criminal must be punished as per the law. Punishment devoid of a legal basis becomes revenge. In this context, the statement by the parents of Siya Goyal that if she has committed the crime, she should also be pushed from the same fort from where Ketan was pushed and given the same punishment has no legal basis.
Gandhi has said that an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Law needs to be reformative and forward-looking.
To understand the current situation, the criminal justice system needs to be better equipped to handle cases of female criminality and society must recognise that it is on the cusp of a transformation in which the dominant narrative that portrays crime as a monopoly of males needs to be rethought.
Aklavya Anand is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi and Shalini Saboo is a Junior Fellow at the Centre for Contemporary Studies, Prime Minister's Museum and Library, Teen Murti House, New Delhi; Views presented are personal.
