Men Too Are Entitled To Same Protection From Cruelty And Violence As Women: Delhi HC

Never in my life till date have I cried so much in joy than after reading this most commendable, most historic, most courageous and most balanced judgment authored by not a man but most astonishingly by a woman herself named – Hon’ble Ms Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma. It is definitely most refreshing, most reassuring and so also most rejuvenating to note here that while taking the most commendable step in the most right direction at the most right time, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest oral judgment titled Jyoti alias Kittu vs The State Govt of NCT of Delhi in Bail Appln. 262/2025 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:DHC:352 that was pronounced as recently as on 22.01.2025 has ruled most explicitly that just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law. We see that anticipatory bail was denied to the wife who most chillingly in a ghastly attack poured boiling water mixed with chilli powder on her husband resulting in burn injuries to him.

It must be noted that the wife sought a lenient view in this leading case from the Bench on the premise that she was a woman. By all accounts, the Bench took the most rational stand as stated in this noteworthy judgment that empowerment of one gender and protection to it cannot come at the cost of fairness towards another. The Bench also made it indisputably clear that it cannot differentiate between genders when it comes to acts of physical violence or causing injuries. Very rightly so!

It is high time and Centre must now make our rape related laws and so also dowry related laws gender neutral. I am most ashamed to note that even in the revised penal laws, we see this has not been done just like for terror acts, we see no mandatory death penalty inserted which is war against nation by terrorists funded and trained fully by enemy nations like Pakistan directly and indirectly through countries like US, UK, Canada and China among others which I find most baffling indeed! Of course, the time is ripe to make the requisite changes in this regard also!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 3 that, “The case in hand, unfolded an incident of causing burn injuries by pouring boiling water mixed with chilli powder on the husband by a wife, where she now seeks a lenient view since she is a woman and therefore, prays that she be granted anticipatory bail.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “The facts of the case are stark. On the first day of the year 2025, i.e. 01.01.2025, a PCR call was received vide DD nos. 32A, 39A and 40A at Police Station Nangloi, Delhi. On reaching the spot, the PCR caller Sh. Vishal s/o Sh. Taj Singh informed the IO that injured Sh. Suraj and his wife Jyoti alongwith one minor daughter ‘D’ aged about 3 months have been residing at 1st floor of their house as tenants. At about 3 AM, he heard the tenant Suraj shouting for help and his face, chest and neck were burnt. However, his wife was not present at the premises. Their minor child, aged about three months, was also crying in the room.”

While shedding light further on facts of the case, the Bench then discloses in para 5 laying bare that, “The investigation further revealed that the accused Ms. Jyoti had poured boiling water mixed with red chilli powder on the victim, her husband Sh. Suraj. The victim Sh. Suraj, unfolded the incident to the police that at about 03:00 AM, his wife, accused Jyoti had, while he was sleeping, poured boiling water mixed with red chilli powder on his face, neck, chest and eyes. Thereafter, she had locked the room from outside to ensure that he would not receive any medical aid and had fled from the spot. She had also left their three months old daughter in the room itself. Accused Jyoti had also taken the mobile phone of Suraj along with her to ensure he is not able to contact anyone. He also informed the police that he had discovered documentary proof that his wife Ms. Jyoti has made many false complaints of rape against several persons. When he had confronted her with the same, she had threatened him of dire consequences, before the incident in question. She was infuriated when he had told her that he had lodged a complaint against her with the police and she had threatened him with ‘main tujhe dekh lungi’. He had gone to sleep at 10:00 PM when the incident took place at 3:00 AM when he was fast asleep.”

As it turned out, the Bench enunciates in para 6 that, “Accordingly, an FIR bearing no. 04/2025, was registered at P.S. Nangloi, Outer District, Delhi, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 110/351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.”

Quite forthrightly, we see that the Division Bench  lamented in para 17 disclosing that, “Despite the severity of the offence, an argument was advanced before this Court that, since the accused is a woman, and wife of the victim, who was being tortured by him, she should be treated with leniency and as a victim though no explanation was forthcoming even during the course of arguments about the conduct of the accused.”

In the fitness of things, the Bench very rightly points out in para 18 holding that, “The argument as above, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, bring forth gender biases, whether hidden, conscious, or unconscious, which are an undeniable reality and not a mere fiction of the mind. Such biases – rooted in societal perceptions, cultural conditioning, or individual assumptions – often find their way into arguments advanced before the Courts, where leniency is sought solely on the basis of the accused’s gender. However, it is the duty of the judiciary to remain vigilant and ensure that decisions are not influenced by such biases where law or judicial precedents specifically do not so provide.”

Most remarkably, the Bench then waxed eloquent to hold in para 19 that, “The jurisprudence surrounding the grant of bail is guided by well-established principles, including the nature of injuries caused, the conduct of the accused, and the circumstances under which life-threatening injuries are inflicted. These principles, however, do not differentiate or lay down different rules for consideration, solely based on the gender of the victim or the accused. Further, the injuries caused to the body – whether of a man or a woman – cannot be categorized differently based on gender.”

Most sagaciously, the Bench propounds in para 20 holding that, “The pain, trauma, and damage resulting from such injuries are the same, irrespective of the victim’s gender. The criminal jurisprudence in India, particularly in cases of life-threatening injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, is gender-neutral, as reflected in the term “whoever does any act” under the penal law. Therefore, it would amount to perversity of justice if, in cases where a woman causes such grievous injuries to a man, she is treated with leniency solely on account of her gender, despite the seriousness of the offence.”

No doubt, the Bench rightly observes in para 21 that, “While dealing with this argument, this Court wonders that in case the roles were reversed, and had the husband poured boiling water mixed with chilli powder on his wife while she was asleep, would have locked her inside the room, after doing so, would have taken her phone and had fled away from the spot, leaving their infant child crying beside her, it would have been undoubtedly argued that no mercy should be shown to him. However, the Courts cannot let hidden or apparent biases guide them while deciding cases even when arguments full of hidden biases are presented before them.”

Most forthrightly, the Bench holds in para 22 that, “In this Court’s opinion, the hallmark of fair and just justice delivery system is to remain gender-neutral while adjudicating cases of such nature as the present one. In case a woman causes such injuries, a special class cannot be created for her. Crimes involving the infliction of life-threatening bodily injuries must be dealt with firmly, irrespective of whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman since the life and dignity of every individual, regardless of gender, are equally precious.”

It would be instructive to note that the Bench concedes in para 23 noting that, “Moreover, the notion that in marital relationships, only women suffer physical or mental cruelty without exception, may be contrary to the hard realities of life in many cases. Courts cannot adjudicate the cases before them, on the basis of stereotypes.”

Most significantly, what constitutes the cornerstone and bottom-line of this robust judgment is then encapsulated concisely in para 24 postulating that, “The empowerment of one gender and protection to it cannot come at the cost of fairness towards another. Just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law. To suggest otherwise would violate the very basic principles of equality and human dignity, and this Court cannot differentiate between genders when it comes to acts of physical violence or causing injuries. Creating a special class of leniency for one gender would erode the foundational principles of justice in cases of life threatening bodily injuries.”

Equally significant is what is then underscored in para 25 expounding that, “This case also highlights a broader societal challenge. Men who are victims of violence at the hands of their wives often face unique difficulties, including societal disbelief and the stigma associated with being perceived as a victim. Such stereotypes perpetuate the erroneous belief that men cannot suffer violence in domestic relationships. Thus, the Courts must recognize the need for a gender-neutral approach to such cases, by ensuring that men and women are treated alike.”

No less significant is what is then pointed out in para 26 stating that, “In the present case, the bail application has to be adjudicated on the basis of the concrete facts presented before it, including the statements of witnesses and the medical records. The plight of the victim, as evident from the medical records and other evidence, must be the primary consideration in deciding such applications where life threatening injuries have been caused.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 11 that, “This Court notes that the victim husband has clearly disclosed in his statement that the applicant herein had filed a false rape case against him and under threat, he had got married to her. They were married on 14.02.2024 and were staying in a rented accommodation. He states that he was forced to live with the applicant and marry her since she had threatened him that in case he will not live with her, she will file a false complaint against him, his uncle, his father and his brother at P.S. Bawana, Delhi. However, the case was settled and they had started living as husband and wife.”

It cannot be glossed over that the Bench notes in para 12 that, “Though the learned counsel for the applicant states that it was the applicant/wife who was being tortured and harassed by the victim husband herein and his family members, no complaint has been lodged against them by the applicant/accused.”

What also we cannot afford to gloss over is that the Bench reveals in para 13 stating that, “Further, the victim had already filed a complaint four days prior to the incident with the police regarding which the accused was upset about with the victim. In the complaint lodged on 27.12.2024 i.e. four days prior to the incident in question, he has narrated that one day when he had come back from work, he had found that his mother-inlaw had brought one girl child, aged about two years, to the rented accommodation and had told him that she was the daughter of the applicant herein from her previous husband. It was then, that he had come to know that she had been earlier married and also had a child from her previous husband, and that there was a concealment of the fact of her previous marriages and having a child from one of the marriages. He had also come across certain documents and photographs which pointed that the applicant herein had been in relationship with 9-10 other persons, and she had married three or four times and had also filed cases under Section 376 of IPC against some of them.”

Further, it is laid bare in para 14 stating that, “It is when the victim had confronted the applicant with those facts, that she had threatened him that she will kill him as is mentioned in the FIR i.e. “Jyoti boli tujhe toh jaan se maarna hi hai, wa ab tu marega”. She had thereafter poured boiling water mixed with chilli powder on his eyes, on his chest and on his neck and he was badly burnt. It was only when he was raising the alarm that the son of the landlord had heard and unlocked him and found that the victim had been burnt and was lying in the room along with the three-months-old child.”

Furthermore, it is then stated in para 15 that, “The MLC has also been perused by this Court which reveals that the victim has suffered injuries on his eyes, nose, and particularly shoulder, neck, arms, chest. During the course of arguments, the learned APP also placed before this Court, the details of two FIRs i.e. FIR No. 572/2020, registered at P.S. Palam, Delhi and FIR No. 262/2019, registered at P.S. Dayal Pur, Delhi, for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC, on the basis of complaints filed by the applicant herein. The documents and photographs which were mentioned by the victim herein in his complaint, regarding her marriage, etc., have also been handed over by the I.O. to the Court.”

Quite naturally, the Bench then points out in para 16 stating that, “Though the learned counsel for the applicant argued that it was the applicant who has been harassed by the husband herein and only when he was talking to some other girls, an altercation had taken place, there is yet no explanation offered as to how the victim has sustained injuries and as to why the applicant herein fled the spot with his phone after locking him inside the room and is absconding. On the other hand, the categorical statement of the husband, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, reveals as to how the applicant herein had systematically ensured that either grievous injuries are caused to him which are sufficient to cause his death by pouring boiling water mixed with chilli powder on his face and chest while he was fast asleep and thereafter, bolted the door from outside, taking his phone with her to ensure that he was trapped inside the room without seeking medical aid or help. The husband, writhing in unbearable pain from the burn injuries, was rendered helpless and unable to seek medical assistance due to the acts of the accused. The intent to cause grievous harm or even death is apparent from the circumstances.”

As a corollary, the Bench deems fit to hold in para 27 that, “In light of the above discussion, this Court finds the argument advanced by the learned counsel for accused – seeking leniency on the ground of the accused’s gender – completely devoid of merit.”

It must be borne in mind that the Bench rightly points out in para 28 that, “The other argument that the accused be granted bail since she has a three month old child to take care of, is also found unmerited in this case, since it is apparent from the record, from the complaint and the statement of the witnesses recorded so far, prima facie, that accused herein had left her three months old daughter crying besides a badly burnt husband and had locked both of them in the room before fleeing from the spot with his phone. The daughter is being taken care of by the victim/husband and his family.”

More to the point, the Bench rightly held in para 29 that, “The argument regarding there being no motive and false implication of the accused, to entitle her to anticipatory bail, is also unmerited, since the record reveals that four days prior to the incident in question, i.e. on 27.12.2024, the victim husband had lodged a detailed complaint with the police (running into eight pages) against her wife for cheating, extortion and forced marriage. Pertinently, in the said complaint, the victim had mentioned in detail about the conduct of the accused, including her previous relationships with several men, a child born out of a previous marriage which she had not disclosed to the victim herein, the fact that she had filed several cases under Section 376 of IPC against different persons, etc., which were not in his knowledge. He had also mentioned his apprehension that his wife may kill him with the help of her mother and other family members and he had therefore sought protection from the police.”

It merits mentioning that the Bench observes in para 30 that, “Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that the applicant herein has failed to join investigation, the recovery of the phone of the victim is to be effected along with the need to confront her with the documents mentioned in the complaint, considering also the nature of injuries and the manner in which the injuries were caused, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.”

Resultantly, the Bench holds in para 31 that, “In view of the above, the present application stands dismissed.”

In addition, the Bench for clarity clarifies in para 32 stating that, “Before parting, this Court clarifies that since the arguments were addressed in detail, and the learned counsel had specifically emphasized upon dealing with his contentions, a prima facie finding had to be given while deciding this application.”

For further clarity, the Bench then also clarifies in para 33 stating that, “However, it is clarified that nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on merits of the case.”

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 34 that, “The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.”

 

Contributed by: Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

 

Please log on to our YouTube channel The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips and learn about different aspects of the law. Our latest video is on “Supreme Court Litigation” that may be viewed on the link below:

https://youtu.be/scMIgaQs_7E?si=tNdNQq_vE3uT-_Cg