In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court declared that domestic violence offenses involving an intent to kill are to be treated with utmost seriousness, and a marital relationship cannot be considered a mitigating factor in such cases. The court subsequently denied a bail petition related to the case. The case was initiated following a complaint filed by the brother of the deceased, which stated the accused’s prior criminal background.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the hearing, emphasized that acts of domestic violence, especially those involving an intent to murder, demand severe scrutiny. The court stated that in such situations, the marital relationship would be viewed as an aggravating factor rather than a factor that diminishes the severity of the crime. The court was considering a bail application by an accused, in a case registered under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, 1860), including 307 and 506, and the Arms Act, 1959.
The entire case was initiated based on a statement by the brother of the deceased, alleging that his sister was murdered by her husband, who is the main accused in this case. The complaint also mentioned that the deceased discovered after the marriage that her husband was involved in criminal activities, which resulted in his imprisonment in 2015.
Reports indicated that the deceased did not wish to remain with her husband, and after his release from prison, the accused coerced her to live with him and threatened to kill her if she declined. The FIR stated that the accused forced the victim into an auto-rickshaw while she was at her workplace, produced a country-made pistol, shot her in the abdomen, and fled the scene.
When denying bail to the accused, Justice Sharma noted that the defense argued the accused shot the victim in anger when she refused to accompany him to her in-laws’ house, portraying it as an act committed in the heat of the moment.
The High Court found the argument unacceptable, interpreting it as a manifestation of patriarchal entitlement. It also highlighted that the wife’s refusal to accompany the accused does not constitute sudden provocation.
The court dismissed the bail plea and instructed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the case within six months, considering the accused’s nearly six years in judicial custody. The court further stated that the claim of the wife’s refusal to return was met with a very cruel act of violence, where she was shot and needed to be hospitalized for a month with four surgeries.