Read Time: 07 minutes
The court also opined, “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”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, dismissed an anticipatory bail application of a woman accused of causing burn injuries by pouring boiling water mixed with chili powder on her husband. The accused sought a lenient view on the grounds that she is a woman.
The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, however, rejected the bail application noting that “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”.
The case was registered after a PCR call was received on January 1, 2025. Upon investigation, it was discovered that while the husband was sleeping the wife had poured boiling water mixed with red chili powder on his face, neck, chest, and eyes. She additionally, bottled the door from outside preventing her husband from receiving medical aid, and fled the scene.
The court rejected the argument of the wife that since she was a woman who was being tortured by her husband she should be treated with leniency. The court opined that “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”. The court also highlighted that the judiciary must remain vigilant and not influence the decision based on gender biases.
Furthermore, the court noted that the provisions of law dealing with life-threatening bodily injuries are gender-neutral. The court emphasized, “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”.
Additionally, the court noted that a fair and just justice delivery system must remain impartial to gender while adjudicating cases such as the one at hand. If a woman inflicts life-threatening injuries, no special classification can be made in her favor.
The court further stated that the assumption that only women suffer physical or mental cruelty in marital relationships does not align with the realities of many cases. Decisions cannot be made based on stereotypes. Empowering and protecting one gender should not come at the expense of fairness towards another. “Just as women deserve protection from cruelty and violence, men too are entitled to the same safeguards under the law”, the court added.
The court also noted a broader societal challenge where men who are victims of domestic violence often face disbelief and stigma, reinforcing the incorrect perception that men cannot suffer violence in such relationships. It emphasized the need for a gender-neutral approach to such cases, ensuring that men and women are treated equally under the law.
The court further opined, “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”. Thus, the court dismissed the application seeking anticipatory bail application.
For Petitioner: Advocates Shashi Bhushan Jha and AartiFor Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar ChaharCase Title: Jyoti Alias Kittu v The State (2025:DHC:352)
Please Login or Register
