Domestic Violence Offences With Intention To Kill Must Be Viewed With Seriousness, Marriage Not Mitigating Factor: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the offences of domestic violence with the intention to kill must be viewed with seriousness and marital relationship is not a mitigating factor in such cases.“Offences of domestic violence of such nature where the intention is to kill are to be viewed with seriousness and the marital relationship in such cases would be treated as aggravating and...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the offences of domestic violence with the intention to kill must be viewed with seriousness and marital relationship is not a mitigating factor in such cases.
“Offences of domestic violence of such nature where the intention is to kill are to be viewed with seriousness and the marital relationship in such cases would be treated as aggravating and not mitigating factor,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The Court was dealing with a plea filed by an accused seeking bail in a case registered under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25, 27,54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The case was registered on the basis of statement of a brother alleging that her sister was shot dead by her husband- accused in the case. It was alleged that after her marriage, the deceased came to know that the husband was involved in criminal activities and had been sent to jail in 2015.
It was alleged that the deceased did not want to live with him and after the accused had come out from the jail, he had forced her to live with him and upon her refusal, he threatened to kill her.
As per the FIR, the accused forced the deceased to sit in an auto when she was on her duty, pulled out a country made pistol, shot her in the abdomen and had fled away from the spot.
Denying bail to the accused, Justice Sharma noted that the accused's counsel had argued that the accused had shot at the victim as he was angry and infuriated on her refusal to accompany him to the matrimonial home, and it was at the spur of the moment and in heat of passion that he had shot at her.
The Court said that it cannot support the plea of being angry as a husband on refusal of wife to accompany him to the matrimonial home, as the same brings to surface the patriarchal entitlement that a person feels entitled to.
“Mere refusal of the victim/wife to accompany the accused would not constitute sudden provocation. The intent of the argument that the marital disobedience by the wife had provoked the husband to have tried to kill her has to be met with the finding and assertion by this Court that assertion of the wife to not to be subjected to domestic violence cannot justify violence by a husband,” the Court said.
It added that the assertion by the wife of refusing to return to a violent matrimonial home was met with extreme violence of being shot at which required her admission in the hospital for a month and four surgeries.
The Court said that to accept the plea of anger at the spur of the moment would amount to legitimizing the notion of patriarchal entitlement which reduces women to subservience and even her refusal to return to violent matrimonial home is treated as provocation.
Rejecting the plea, the Court however directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months, since the accused was in judicial custody for about six years.
Title: SUSHANT RAJ v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1017