Presumption as to dowry death
Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with presumption as to dowry death. When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the d The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death, such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Section 118, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 113B Presumption as to dowry death Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-17.pdf 2015-02-26 (not ROPs 16/18). Crl A 2321/2009. 3-judge Thakur/Nariman/Pant. DATE-CHECK flagged 1993-08-31 (death date in the facts); the document is the 2015 dowry-death restatement. IPC 304B 'soon before' is not 'immediately before'. Appasaheb / Vipin Jaiswal are not good law on a narrow reading of 'dowry'. IEA 113B presumption is triggered once the prosecution proves the basic facts. Map ipc 304B and iea 113B.
On this section: Successor of IEA 113B (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9929). Dowry-death presumption teaching carries to BSA 118.
-
Rajinder Singh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In dowry death prosecutions under Section 304B IPC, once the prosecution establishes that: (a) the victim died within 7 years of marriage under circumstances otherwise than normal, (b) the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death, the court must invoke the mandatory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the accused caused the dowry death. The 'soon before her death' requirement is satisfied when there is proximate connection between the harassment and death, determined on case-by-case basis. Circumstantial evidence, including conduct showing consciousness of guilt (such as hasty cremation), combined with forensic evidence and credible witness testimony, can establish dowry death beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to explain incriminating facts within special knowledge (such as presence of pesticide or hasty cremation) permits adverse inference under Section 106 of Evidence Act.
On this section: Presumption in case of death of woman by burns or injury soon before marriage preceded by cruelty/harassment for dowry. Mandatory presumption creating burden on accused once ingredients established.
-
Ram Pyarey vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Station House Officer
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, the court cannot invoke the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act without first establishing cogent evidence of cruelty or harassment. The presumptive language in Section 113A ('may presume') is permissive, not mandatory, and requires a foundation of direct evidence of aiding, instigating, or encouraging the suicide. The absence of such cogent evidence renders the presumption inapplicable, and the accused must be acquitted.
On this section: Presumption as to dowry death - The Supreme Court distinguished this from Section 113A, noting that Section 113B uses mandatory language ('shall presume') while Section 113A uses permissive language ('may presume').
-
Buddhadeb Saha vs The State of West Bengal
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case of dowry death under Section 304B IPC, chemical examination of viscera is not mandatory. When a woman dies soon after marriage under suspicious circumstances following harassment for dowry, and there is evidence of unnatural death (such as post-mortem findings consistent with poisoning), the court can presume under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act that the person subjected to such harassment caused the dowry death. The absence of positive identification of poison in the viscera report is not fatal to the prosecution case if there is other evidence of unnatural death and the delay in forwarding samples can explain the negative report. Circumstantial evidence combined with the mandatory presumption under Section 113B can sustain a conviction for dowry death.
On this section: Presumption as to dowry death. Court emphasized that when a woman dies soon after marriage and was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry, the court SHALL presume the person caused the dowry death. The word 'shall' makes this presumption mandatory, not discretionary.
-
Major Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To sustain a conviction under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, the prosecution must establish all five essential ingredients with specific emphasis on proving that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand 'soon before her death'. The expression 'soon before her death' requires a proximity test with a material temporal and causal link (proximate and live link) between the alleged harassment and the death. Without clear and credible evidence of such harassment inflicted shortly before death, the conviction cannot be sustained even if the death occurs within seven years of marriage and the victim dies by abnormal circumstances. Evidence from interested witnesses (close family members) alone, without independent corroboration despite opportunity to secure such corroboration, is insufficient to discharge the prosecution's burden of proof. The absence of conviction under Section 498A IPC (cruelty) in the same case further supports reasonable doubt regarding the essential ingredient of dowry-related harassment.
On this section: Presumption as to dowry death; when it is shown that soon before her death a woman has been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry demand, the court shall presume the person caused the dowry death. This section was examined for its operative scope and the requirement that evidence of cruelty/harassment must be 'soon before death'.
-
Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, the prosecution must prove beyond preponderance of evidence that: (i) the death of a woman occurred in abnormal circumstances caused by burns or bodily injury, (ii) within seven years of her marriage, and (iii) that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relative connected with a demand for dowry, with the cruelty/harassment maintaining a live link or causal connection to the death (not being stale or aberration of past). Only after prosecution establishes these three core elements does the burden shift to the husband or relative to disprove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The word 'shown' in Section 304B must be interpreted as 'prove' (using preponderance standard), and the deeming provision operates after such proof, not before. Until prosecution discharges this foundational burden, the accused's presumption of innocence is not displaced, and the burden of proof does not shift to the defense.
On this section: Mandates presumption (not discretionary) that dowry death was caused by the husband or his relatives once three basic facts are shown: abnormal death within seven years of marriage, and cruelty/harassment connected with dowry demand. Court held that burden then shifts to accused to disprove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Srikant vs State of Mp
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that a woman died within seven years of marriage due to burns or bodily injury, and that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for dowry demand soon before her death (even if not immediately before death), the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act shall be invoked against the accused. The burden then shifts to the accused to prove that the death was accidental and not caused by the harassment. An accused cannot escape liability by merely pointing to dying declarations that contain inconsistent versions, especially when medical evidence (postmortem examination) contradicts the accidental narrative. The essential requirement of 'soon before' is satisfied through a proximity test that considers the circumstances of the case, not by reference to any fixed period; a harassment 5-6 months before death is sufficiently proximate when it is continuous and unabated. When death is caused by burns, the condition of 'occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances' is automatically fulfilled without requiring separate proof.
On this section: Presumption as to dowry death: Court explained that presumption arises when (i) question is whether accused committed dowry death, (ii) woman subjected to cruelty/harassment by husband, (iii) such cruelty for dowry demand, (iv) cruelty was soon before death. Once these conditions proved, court shall presume accused caused dowry death; burden then shifts to accused to prove otherwise.
-
A. K. Devaiah vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a woman dies by burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage and it is shown through consistent testimony of credible witnesses that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband for or in connection with a demand for dowry, the mandatory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act applies, shifting the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption. The testimony of the deceased's close family members regarding the dowry demand, the cruelty inflicted, and the harassment endured constitutes admissible and credible evidence to establish the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC. Once these three ingredients (abnormal death within seven years, cruelty/harassment for dowry before death, and the causal nexus) are proven, the legal presumption of dowry death operates automatically unless rebutted by the accused, and a trial court's acquittal based on suspicion and conjecture without properly appreciating such evidence is wholly perverse and liable to be set aside by appellate courts.
On this section: Presumption regarding dowry death - When death occurs within seven years and woman was subjected to cruelty/harassment for dowry demand soon before death, court shall (mandatory) presume person caused dowry death. Central provision applied; once three ingredients established, presumption automatically arises and burden shifts to accused to rebut. Court held presumption was not rebutted by appellant's defence.
-
Ramaiah @ Rama vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When essential ingredients of a dowry-related criminal offence, particularly the demand for dowry and subsequent cruelty or harassment for non-payment thereof, are not established beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 498-A, and Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can only be invoked after the prerequisite of proved dowry-related cruelty or harassment is satisfied. When an appellate court reviews an acquittal and finds that two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, with one view being favourable to the accused as taken by the trial court, the appellate court should not disturb such acquittal unless the trial court's reasoning is clearly unreasonable or vitiated by manifest illegality. Courts must scrutinize witness credibility carefully when inconsistencies exist between original complaint and later testimony, and when significant delays in lodging FIR lack satisfactory explanation.
On this section: Presumption as to dowry death; Court held that this presumption can only be invoked when it is first established that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry demand; mere death within six months of marriage does not suffice; essential ingredient of proved dowry-related cruelty must precede invocation of presumption
-
Bhupendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A conviction for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC does not require a chemical examination report of viscera proving the specific poison consumed; proof of unnatural death of a woman within 7 years of marriage following cruelty or harassment for dowry, combined with the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, is sufficient for conviction. Further, Sections 304-B and 306 IPC are not mutually exclusive; a conviction under Section 304-B necessarily attracts Section 306, though the converse is not true. Suicide is a recognized mode of death falling within Section 304-B when preceded by dowry-related cruelty.
On this section: Presumption as to abetment of suicide by treatment of dowry death. Core presumption invoked in this case - presumes that husband or relative caused dowry death when woman dies under abnormal circumstances within 7 years of marriage following cruelty for dowry.
-
Gurdip Singh vs State of Punjab
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions under Section 304B IPC for dowry death, the prosecution bears the mandatory burden of proving all five statutory ingredients as matters of fact before the mandatory presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The seven-year marriage requirement is a crucial ingredient that must be established through credible evidence, not presumption. Absent proof of this ingredient, the conviction under Section 304B cannot be sustained, though conviction under Section 498A for cruelty may still stand if the evidence establishes harassment and cruelty by the husband or relative.
On this section: Presumption regarding dowry death; uses mandatory language 'court shall presume'; applies only after prosecution establishes all factual ingredients of Section 304B IPC
-
S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court cannot reverse a trial court's acquittal by relying on presumptions under Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act when the foundational facts of dowry harassment, demand, and payment have not been established beyond reasonable doubt through credible and consistent evidence. Appellate courts must respect trial court acquittals and can only interfere in exceptional cases where the judgment is found to be perverse or where there are compelling circumstances.
On this section: Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman - presumes that if the death of a married woman is caused by suicide and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, the person subjecting her to such cruelty is deemed to have abetted the commission of suicide
-
Mustafa Shahadal Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In dowry death cases under Section 304-B IPC, once the prosecution establishes by reliable and acceptable evidence that: (i) death of woman occurred by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than normal circumstances; (ii) within seven years of marriage; (iii) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before death by husband or his relatives; and (iv) such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with dowry demand, such death shall be called dowry death and the husband or relatives shall be deemed to have caused the death. The phrase 'soon before her death' requires proximate temporal link between the cruelty/harassment and death, with no definite period prescribed but normally implying the interval should not be much. Evidence from family members is admissible and credible in matrimonial death cases despite absence of outsider witnesses. Once Section 304-B ingredients are established, a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment cannot be reduced on grounds of age, family circumstances or other considerations.
On this section: Presumption as to dowry death. When question is whether person committed dowry death and shown that soon before death woman subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry demand, court shall presume such person caused dowry death. Court noted prosecution must still establish harassment or cruelty related to dowry demand and that it occurred 'soon before her death' despite this presumption. Once Section 304-B ingredients established, burden shifts to accused to disprove.
-
Gurnam Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an employee is dismissed from service based on conviction under a specific criminal charge, and that conviction is subsequently acquitted or substantially modified by an appellate court, the original dismissal order becomes unsustainable in law. The employer must reconsider the dismissal in light of the modified conviction and determine whether the modified conviction involves moral turpitude or impinges on the employee's duties. Mere conviction under a criminal statute does not automatically warrant dismissal; the nature of the offense and its implications for the employee's fitness must be examined. The employer must provide reasoned findings on these aspects before maintaining or upholding the dismissal.
On this section: Presumption of dowry death - the appellate court noted that this presumption can only be drawn when all essential ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are proved by prosecution.
-
Pathan Hussain Basha vs State of A. P
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a woman dies unnaturally within seven years of marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or relatives for or in connection with demand for dowry, all ingredients of Section 304B IPC are satisfied. The 'soon before her death' should be interpreted using the concept of reasonable time based on facts and circumstances, not as a narrow strict period. Once the prosecution establishes these ingredients through reliable evidence, a deeming fiction under Section 113B Evidence Act presumes the accused caused the dowry death, shifting the burden to the accused to prove otherwise. Mere denial without cogent evidence cannot discharge this burden. However, sentencing discretion remains with the court to consider humanitarian factors and time served.
On this section: Presumption clause in dowry death cases. Court analyzed the deeming fiction created by this section—once ingredients of Section 304B are established, court shall presume the accused caused the dowry death. This shifts the burden to the accused to prove otherwise. Court held that presumption requires the prosecution to first prove ingredients, then the burden shifts to accused.
-
Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 113B, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is charged with dacoity-with-murder under Section 396 IPC, the ingredient of murder defined under Section 300 IPC is expressly incorporated into Section 396 by specific statutory language. Therefore, if the evidence establishes that the accused committed murder but does not establish the dacoity component, the accused can be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC without a specific charge for Section 302, provided: (a) the accused had notice that murder was an allegation against him through the Section 396 charge and Section 313 examination where facts were put to him; (b) he had full opportunity to defend himself; (c) no prejudice resulted to his right to fair trial, presumption of innocence, or the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (d) the ingredients of murder under Section 300 IPC are satisfied by the evidence. The principle of cognate offences permits such conviction when the graver offence (dacoity-with-murder) incorporates the essential elements of the lesser offence (murder) by express statutory language, and the accused suffered no failure of justice.
On this section: Presumption regarding causing death of a woman with whose husband she had been living within seven years of marriage. Referenced in context of Section 304-B cases
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 118
What have the courts held on Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (26 Feb 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 113B, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Successor of IEA 113B (mapping.csv near-identical, score 0.9929). Dowry-death presumption teaching carries to BSA 118. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 15 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 118, section 118 BSA, section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type 118 bsa act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (26 Feb 2015).
What should I read with Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 80 (Dowry death), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward IEA 113B (Presumption as to dowry death), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 118, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.