rushrk1

She was beaten days after her wedding, and a court order did nothing to stop it. Ten years later, she set her husband on fire. Then she faced a murder trial without anyone properly hearing her side. Kiranjit Ahluwalia moved to England in 1979 after an arranged marriage in India. She had barely met her husband, Deepak, before the wedding. The violence began only days after they married. It carried on for the next ten years, and over time it grew worse and more frequent, until it was happening almost every day. Kiranjit tried to get help. In 1983, a court ordered Deepak to stop hitting her. He did not stop. She was later granted a second order, and the beatings still continued. She also went to her own family. They told her to stay, because leaving would bring shame on the family's honour. By 1989, she had two young sons and nowhere left to turn. In May 1989, Deepak told her their marriage was over and refused to speak to her. He demanded money for a phone bill and threatened to beat her the next morning if she did not give it. Later that night, he pressed a hot iron against her face and told her he would burn her if she did not leave him alone. Then he went to bed. Kiranjit sat for about two and a half hours. Then she went outside, got petrol, and set Deepak on fire while he slept. He was badly burned and died in hospital about ten days later. Kiranjit spoke only broken English at the time. She told a UK parliamentary committee years later that police never offered her an interpreter. She said she begged her lawyers for one, because she had so much more to tell them. They replied that her English was good enough and she did not need it. She wrote out 35 pages of her life story for her solicitor. Even so, she said she could not explain what had happened to her. Out of shame over the sexual abuse, and fear of her family hearing it in court, she did not give evidence at her own trial. In December 1989, she was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Her lawyers had argued provocation, but the jury rejected it. The law at the time said provocation meant a sudden loss of self control. Kiranjit's anger had built up over ten years, and she acted hours after the last attack, so the court did not see her case as fitting. Then a women's group called Southall Black Sisters took up her case. They had very little money, but they campaigned loudly for her release. In 1992, her case reached the Court of Appeal. New medical evidence showed Kiranjit had been suffering from severe depression when she set the fire. That evidence had never been presented at her first trial. Her murder conviction was replaced with manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. She was given a sentence equal to the three years and four months she had already served, and she walked out a free woman in September 1992. Her case, R v Ahluwalia, is still taught in British law courses today. In 2007, her story was made into the film Provoked, starring Aishwarya Rai. Kiranjit was punished first by a husband and then by a system that never properly listened to her. If someone cannot fully explain their story in the language of the court, can the trial really be called fair?