Recently, the Delhi High Court refused to grant regular bail to a husband accused of attempting to murder his wife, holding that the mere refusal of a wife to return to a violent matrimonial home cannot constitute sudden provocation. The Court emphasized that acts of domestic violence with intent to kill must be treated with utmost seriousness, and marital relationship cannot be considered a mitigating factor in such cases.
The case arose from an FIR registered at Mandir Marg Police Station regarding the alleged shooting of a woman by her husband near Kalawati Saran Hospital. The victim, working as a security guard, had repeatedly refused to live with the accused due to his prior criminal history, violent behaviour, and threats to her life. On the day of the incident, the accused allegedly forced the victim into an auto and shot her in the abdomen. She required hospitalization for a month and underwent four surgeries. The accused had been in judicial custody for around six years.
The petitioner argued that the shooting occurred in the heat of the moment, without premeditation, and that he fired only one shot without intent to kill. It was contended that the victim’s refusal provoked him temporarily. Conversely, the State submitted that the accused had a history of criminal activity, alcohol-induced violence, and threats toward the victim, and had used a country-made pistol at close range. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of the offence, the corroborative witness statements, CCTV footage, and the fact that the trial was nearing completion.
The Court observed, “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 further noted that one shot fired at close range to the abdomen, leaving the victim severely injured, demonstrates premeditation rather than heat of the moment action. The claim of being infuriated by the victim’s refusal was described as unacceptable, patriarchal, and regressive. The Court underscored that marital relationship in such offences is an aggravating, not mitigating, factor, especially given the accused’s criminal antecedents and serious intent.
The High Court declined the application for bail, directing the Trial Court to conclude the trial within six months due to the prolonged judicial custody of the accused. The Court emphasized the gravity of the offence, corroborative evidence, and the need for strict enforcement of laws against domestic violence with intent to kill.
Case Title: Sushant Raj vs. State (Nct of Delhi)
Case No.: Bail Appln. 2304/2025
Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Picture Source :