Delhi HC: Domestic Violence with Intent to Kill Must Be Treated Seriously; Marriage Is an Aggravating, Not Mitigating, Factor
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a bail application filed in connection with an incident of attempted murder and related charges. The Court directed that the trial be concluded within six months from the receipt of the order, noting that the accused has been in judicial custody for approximately six years. The Court rejected arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant and recorded that the gravity of the offence, the supporting testimony of witnesses, and the seriousness of allegations disentitled the petitioner from being released on bail at this stage.
The proceedings arose from a case registered under FIR No. 130/2018 at Police Station Mandir Marg, New Delhi, invoking offences punishable under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The allegations were based on the complaint of one Ram Gopal, who reported that his sister had been shot near Kalawati Saran Hospital, Gate No. 5, and admitted in an injured condition to the hospital.
According to the investigation, the victim was employed as a Security Guard at Lady Hardinge Kalawati Hospital. After her marriage to the accused, she allegedly discovered his criminal background, including imprisonment in 2015, which led her to refuse to continue cohabiting with him. She deposed that after his release from prison, he forced her to live with him, but she refused due to his criminal activities. The refusal allegedly led to threats from the accused that he would kill her.
On 24 November 2018, the victim was on duty at the hospital. At about 5:40 PM, the accused allegedly approached her in the ward and asked her to accompany him. When she refused, he waited near Gate No. 5 of the hospital. Later, at about 10:00 PM, after her duty concluded, the accused allegedly confronted her again and insisted she sit in an auto parked nearby. When she refused, she was allegedly forced into the auto under the pretext of discussion. Once inside, the accused allegedly drew a country-made pistol and shot her in the abdomen before fleeing.
The investigation included the recording of the victim’s statement, which corroborated the allegations. Security guards also testified that they had witnessed the accused leaving with the victim. CCTV footage near Gate No. 5 corroborated that both had been present together at the location. The victim remained hospitalised for a month and underwent four surgeries.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the case merited grant of bail since charges had been framed, substantial evidence had been recorded, and the accused had been in custody for six years. It was further contended that the accused and the victim were divorced, that there was no ongoing relationship, and that the act was committed in the heat of the moment rather than with premeditated intent to kill. Counsel submitted that only one shot was fired, and had there been an intention to murder, more shots would have been discharged.
The State opposed bail, citing the severity of allegations. It was argued that the accused, after consuming alcohol, habitually beat the victim, threatened her, and had a criminal history. It was pointed out that the victim’s deposition, supported by witnesses and CCTV footage, demonstrated that the accused had shot his wife at close range without a firearm licence. The State further stated that out of 32 witnesses, 24 had been examined, all of whom supported the prosecution case, and the trial was nearing conclusion.
The Court considered the arguments and examined the record. It noted the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that the accused had shot the victim due to anger when she refused to accompany him and that the act was committed in the heat of passion. The Court, however, recorded that: “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 stated that the submission that only one shot was fired was immaterial: “Since one shot from a country made pistol from a closest range and his act of running away from the spot, leaving her bleeding shows that he had fired from close range on the vital part of the body, he had carried a pistol with him, had waited at the gate for her to return back from her duty, thereby defeating the argument of absence of pre-mediated attack.”
The Court recorded that after the accused’s release from jail in 2018, he had threatened the victim repeatedly to accompany him or face death. It was further noted: “The victim in this case as prima facie apparent from the record had refused to live with him due to the continuous violence as used to beat her after consuming alcohol and was continuously indulging in criminal activities, had been jailed on several occasions, and had contracted AIDS due to his activities could not be taken as behaviour of a wife which could have infuriated him so as to pre-mediate to try, to kill her from a close range.”
The Court also noted that acceptance of the plea of sudden anger 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. Holding such a view would be not only regressive but also contrary to the intent to of the law.”
It was further observed that offences involving domestic violence, where intention to kill is evident, should be treated with seriousness. The marital relationship in such cases would be considered an aggravating rather than a mitigating factor.
Finally, the Court held that Section 307 IPC prescribes punishment up to life imprisonment if hurt is caused to a victim. Given the corroborative evidence, CCTV footage, witness testimony, criminal antecedents, and the near conclusion of the trial, the Court found no merit in the bail application.
The Court directed: “Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the trial is almost going to conclude, out of 32 witnesses, 24 witnesses stand examined, who have supported the prosecution case, the CCTV footage and the statement of the corroborating witnesses supports the prosecution story, as well as the criminal antecedents of the present applicant, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of bail as the gravity of the offence does not entitle him to the same.”
The Court further ordered: “The learned Trial Court is however directed to conclude the trial within a period of six months from receipt of this order, since the accused is in judicial custody for about six years.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Ms. Aditi Kukreja and Mr. Ayush Sachan, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with Ms. Puja Mann and Mr. Chandrakant, Advocates
Case Title: Sushant Raj v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:7200
Case Number: Bail Appln. 2304/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
