Would a reasonable man do that. A reasonable man. Man. Not a person, not a woman, but a man. The very phrasing of the test reveals its bias; the law’s measure of reason is based on that of a heterosexual old white man.
Grave and sudden provocation is recognized as an exception to murder in Indian criminal law. But how does one decide whether or not the provocation was grave enough or sufficient enough to drive a person to lose Self control and commit murder, hence the introduction of the test of a reasonable man.
The question brought up now is that who is this reasonable man? One would assume it is an objective standard, yet it is anything but neutral. Rooted in colonial and patriarchal assumptions, this so-called reasonable man, reflects a view shaped by masculine norms of behavior, emotion, and restraint. The law measures human reaction through the eyes of a man with hurt pride and leaving little room for the lived experiences of women, victims of abuse, or individuals acting out of prolonged suffering and fear rather than sudden rage.
The Indian judiciary’s application of the “reasonable man” test reveals a deeply gendered pattern in how provocation is understood. The courts accepted that discovering a wife’s infidelity could constitute “grave and sudden provocation,” reducing murder charges to culpable homicide. In cases like Kalu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, where the accused set his wife on fire following an argument, the Supreme Court treated his reaction as a momentary loss of control and reduced his sentence. Even in Pravin Khimji Chouhan v. State of Maharashtra, where the man stabbed his wife twenty-six times, the court accepted his defense of provocation and convicted him under Section 304 rather than Section 302.
In contrast, when women have acted after enduring years of abuse, humiliation, or infidelity, the law has rarely been as forgiving. In R v. Ahluwalia, the accused who was subjected to a decade of domestic violence, was initially denied the provocation defense because her act was not “sudden.” She had only intended to burn her husband’s feet to stop him from following her, but his death was treated asmurder initially.Meanwhile, men like Kalu Ram, who inflicted far more severe harm, were deemed “reasonable” in their loss of control due to grave and sudden provocation. Similarly, in Vijay @ Vijaykumar v. State, where the appellant struck a drunk man with a cement brick after an altercation causing death, the Supreme Court, when appealed, reduced his sentence to the period already undergone. The judiciary, in such instances, readily acknowledges the heat of the moment for men, but rarely extends that same understanding to women responding to long-term violence or betrayal.
The pattern is unmistakable: the reasonable man test provides not neutrality, but a distinctly masculine conception of reasonableness, one that sympathizes with male rage while suspecting female endurance. What if a woman killed her unfaithful husband out of betrayal? Would she be called reasonable or hysterical?
When a woman has been abused or violated, society expects her to pack her bags and leave. If she does not move out, her suffering is doubted, without understanding the dependency or the situation the woman finds herself in. These myths do not just shape public opinion; they end up influencing how the law interprets women’s responses to abuse or provocation. A woman who retaliates is seen as unstable, vengeful, irrational, rather than as someone driven to desperation. Such perceptions often weaken her claim of self-defense or provocation, as though endurance somehow cancels out her right to resist.
Yet, when a man reacts violently to infidelity, society instinctively sympathises. Like commander Nanavati was portrayed not as a murderer, but as a heartbroken husband initially. His rage was romanticized as a natural, even honorable, response. If women are expected to quietly walk away from years of humiliation and violence, why are men excused for not walking away from a moment of wounded pride? The “reasonable man” thus portrays a gendered bias for forgiving male aggression while demanding female restraint.
The case of Manju Lakra v. State of Assam stands as a rare instance where the exception of grave and sudden provocation was extended to a woman who killed her husband after enduring prolonged domestic violence. The court, in this case,acknowledged the concept of “sustained provocation,” recognizing that a history of abuse can create a continuous mental state of distress and fear. However, while this judgment has been hailed as a progressive step, it ultimately has not helped in transforming the legal position. Eventhough, Manju Lakra moves the conversation forward, it exposes how the law still struggles to fully accommodate the lived realities of those women who act after enduring prolonged violence rather than in a single explosive moment.
Only when the law sheds its gendered assumptions will it truly be able to deliver justice, not one that sympathizes with masculine rage while silencing feminine pain, but one that recognizes the complexity of human experience in all its forms.
Comments