The Delhi High Court has ruled that acts of domestic violence involving an intent to kill must be taken seriously, and marital relationships should not be a mitigating factor in such cases. The court rejected a bail petition filed by the accused. The case was registered based on a complaint by the deceased’s brother, alleging that the accused had prior criminal involvement.
While hearing the bail petition, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that domestic violence offenses, including those with intent to kill, should be viewed seriously. In such cases, the marital relationship will be considered as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating one. The court was considering a petition filed by an accused seeking bail in a case registered under sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, 1860) and sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The entire case was registered based on a statement by the brother, alleging that his sister was shot dead by her husband, the main accused in the case. The complaint also alleged that the deceased found out after marriage that her husband was involved in criminal activities, which led to his imprisonment in 2015.
It’s alleged that the deceased did not want to live with her husband. After the accused was released from jail, he forced her to live with him and threatened to kill her if she refused. According to the FIR, the accused forcibly put her in an auto, pulled out a country-made pistol, shot her in the stomach while she was on duty, and fled the scene.
Denying bail to the accused, Justice Sharma stated that the accused’s lawyer argued that the accused shot the victim in anger after she refused to go to her in-laws’ house and acted in the heat of the moment, shooting the woman.
The High Court stated it could not accept the husband’s claim of being enraged by the wife’s refusal to go to her in-laws’ house because it reveals a patriarchal right where the man considers himself entitled. The court also noted that the victim or wife’s refusal to accompany the accused does not fall under the category of sudden provocation.
Rejecting the petition, the court directed the trial court to conclude the case within six months, as the accused has been in judicial custody for approximately six years.
