The Delhi High Court has emphasized that cases of domestic violence involving an intention to kill must be dealt with utmost seriousness, and that the mere existence of a marital relationship cannot serve as a mitigating factor for the accused. On the contrary, the Court observed, such a relationship can aggravate the offence, since it involves a betrayal of trust within the institution of marriage.

 

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while rejecting the bail application of an accused husband facing charges under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and provisions of the Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59), held that violence against a wife in the guise of asserting “marital rights” reflects patriarchal entitlement and cannot be condoned by law.

 

The FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint by the victim’s brother, who alleged that his sister was shot by her husband. It was stated that after her marriage, the deceased came to know about her husband’s involvement in criminal activities and his incarceration in 2015. Following his release from prison, the accused allegedly coerced her to resume cohabitation. When she resisted, he threatened to kill her.

 

As per the prosecution, the accused intercepted the woman while she was on her way to work, forced her into an auto-rickshaw, brandished a country-made pistol, and shot her in the abdomen before fleeing the scene. The victim survived but required prolonged hospitalization and underwent four major surgeries during a month-long treatment.

 

The defence argued that the firing was not premeditated but occurred in a sudden outburst of anger when the victim refused to accompany her husband to the matrimonial home. Counsel for the accused urged the Court to consider this as an act committed in the “heat of passion” rather than with deliberate intent.

 

Rejecting the plea, Justice Sharma observed that arguments based on marital provocation only reflect entrenched patriarchal notions of entitlement that normalize violence against women:

 

 

The Court further clarified that a wife’s refusal to subject herself to violence or to return to a hostile matrimonial environment cannot amount to “sudden provocation.” Instead, it must be seen as a legitimate assertion of autonomy and dignity:

 

 

Justice Sharma warned that accepting such defences would amount to legitimizing toxic patriarchal entitlement, reducing women to subservience, and undermining their right to live free from violence.

 

While denying bail, the Court acknowledged that the accused has been in judicial custody for approximately six years. Accordingly, it directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months, ensuring a swift resolution of the matter.