The Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment, emphasizing that domestic violence cases where there is an intention to commit murder are extremely serious and that marital relationships should not serve as a mitigating factor in such instances. The court dismissed a bail application related to the case. The case originated from a complaint filed by the deceased’s brother, alleging that the accused had a history of criminal activity.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the bail hearing, stated that offenses involving domestic violence, especially those with the intent to kill, must be treated with utmost seriousness. The court further asserted that in these cases, the marital relationship should be considered as an aggravating circumstance, rather than a factor that lessens the severity of the crime. The court was addressing a petition filed by an accused seeking bail in a case registered under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, 1860), including sections 307 and 506, and the Arms Act, 1959, specifically sections 25, 27, 54, and 59.
The case was initiated based on the brother’s statement, which claimed that the accused, the victim’s husband, shot and killed her. The complaint also alleged that the deceased discovered after her marriage that her husband was involved in criminal activities, leading to his imprisonment in 2015.
Reports indicate that the deceased did not wish to continue her marital relationship with her husband, who, upon release from prison, compelled her to live with him and threatened her life if she refused. According to the FIR, the accused forced her into an auto-rickshaw while she was at work, produced a country-made pistol, shot her in the abdomen, and then fled the scene.
Refusing to grant bail to the accused, Justice Sharma pointed out that the defense counsel had argued that the accused shot the victim in a moment of anger when she declined to accompany him to her in-laws’ house, an act committed in the heat of the moment.
The High Court found the argument unacceptable, viewing it as a reflection of a patriarchal mindset where the man felt entitled to such actions. The court further clarified that the wife’s refusal to go with the accused did not constitute sudden provocation.
In its decision, the court directed the trial court to conclude the case within six months, given the accused’s approximately six years of judicial custody.