Raj, seeking bail after being in jail for the past six years, had told the court that he did not have an intention to kill her, and that he did that in the “heat of the moment” (Archive)Offences of domestic violence with an intention to kill, such as shooting at your wife for refusing to return to her violent matrimonial home, “are to be viewed with seriousness and the marital relationship in such cases would be treated as aggravating and not mitigating factor”, the Delhi High Court has observed recently.Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma was dealing with a bail plea of one Sushant Raj, charged for attempting to murder his wife. Raj had shot at his wife in 2018 outside a hospital where she worked as a security guard. Raj, seeking bail after being in jail for the past six years, had told the court that he did not have an intention to kill her, and that he did that in the “heat of the moment”. It was submitted that “in case he wanted to murder her, he would have shot her before speaking to her”. To further establish his argument, he emphasised that “he had not taken undue advantage of the situation and had not fired a second shot”.His wife, after their marriage, had learnt that Raj was jailed in 2015 owing to his criminal activities and had refused to live with him. His wife had also accused Raj of continued physical violence after consuming alcohol.Refusing to grant him bail, Justice Sharma, in the order dated August 18 recorded, “Claim of or plea of being angry as a husband on refusal of wife to accompany him to the matrimonial home brings to surface the patriarchal entitlement that a person feels entitled to, which this court cannot support…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 argument that the petitioner had not fired a second shot is immaterial since one shot from a countrymade pistol from a closest range and his act of running away from the spot, leaving her bleeding…(defeats) the argument of absence of pre-mediated attack.”“…the assertion by the wife of refusing to return to a violent matrimonial home has been met in the present case with extreme violence of being shot at which required her admission in the hospital for a month and four surgeries. To accept the plea of anger at the spur of the moment 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 of the law. Offences of domestic violence of such nature where the intention is to kill are to be viewed with seriousness and the marital relationship in such cases would be treated as aggravating and not mitigating factor,” the court recorded, while also observing that the trial is nearing completion.Taking into account that the accused has been in jail for about six years, the Delhi HC however directed the trial court to conclude the trial in the case within six months.Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:delhi high court