Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman
Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjec The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.
Explanation. –– For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in
Section 113A, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 117 Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-21.pdf 2019-11-26. Crl A 1492-1493/2010. Gavai reportable. DATE-CHECK flagged 2009-02-20 HC date (false positive); body is the named 26 Nov 2019 reportable. IEA 113A 'may presume' is permissive not mandatory; a 498A conviction plus suicide within seven years does not automatically equal 306 without a cause-and-effect nexus between cruelty and suicide (Ramesh Kumar, Hans Raj, Pinakin). Map iea 113A + BSA 117 successor (near-identical 0.9954). Do not pad ipc 498A/306/304B (already filled).
On this section: IEA 113A is a permissive 'may presume'; a 498A conviction plus death within seven years does not automatically prove 306 without a cause-and-effect nexus (Gurjit Singh).
-
Ram Pyarey vs The State of Uttar Pradesh Home Department Station House Officer
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 abetment of suicide by a married woman - The courts below relied heavily on this section to presume abetment. The Supreme Court clarified that this presumption can only be invoked after establishing cogent evidence of cruelty.
-
Patel Maheshbhai Ranchobhai vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court abandons its prime duty to appreciate evidence for search of truth and disposes of a criminal case hastily without properly examining all available evidence, an appellate court can reverse the acquittal and convict the accused based on a proper re-appreciation of the evidence on record, particularly when the dying declaration of the victim is corroborated by circumstances and the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act applies. The courts have a constitutional duty to ensure justice and cannot remain passive when the prosecuting agency fails to present complete evidence or when there is evidence of collusion between the prosecution and the trial court. Both the prosecutor and the trial court have a duty to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record to prevent miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Presumption in dowry death cases. When the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs under circumstances showing that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or in-laws, the court shall presume that such death was caused by the accused unless the contrary is proved.
-
Atmaram vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To convict a husband or relative of a woman under Sections 306 and 498A IPC, or to draw a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, there must be evidence establishing that such husband or relative committed cruelty of the nature described in clauses (a) or (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A IPC. Mere misbehavior, ordinary domestic discord, or unmet expectations within domestic life do not constitute legally cognizable cruelty. The court must carefully assess whether the conduct alleged was of such a nature as objectively and reasonably likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, not merely that it affected a hypersensitive victim. Where the evidence fails to establish such cruelty with reasonable certainty, conviction cannot rest on presumption alone, and must be set aside.
On this section: Presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman - core provision in case; requires showing that woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage and that husband subjected her to cruelty; court held that even though both conditions appeared satisfied on surface, the nature of evidence did not establish cruelty as legally defined
-
Rakhal Debnath vs State of West Bengl
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a married woman commits suicide within seven years of marriage after being subjected to cruelty in the form of dowry demands, jewelry pledging, and evidence of instigation by the husband through sustained harassment and illicit relationship with another woman, the court may presume that the husband abetted the suicide under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 306 IPC. Such presumption is not irrebuttable, but when supported by consistent ocular evidence from multiple witnesses regarding the deceased's complaints and the circumstances demonstrating a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and suicide, the conviction stands. The postmortem medical evidence need not conclusively determine suicide as the cause of death; circumstantial evidence including physical findings at the scene (kerosene, burned materials), pattern of conduct by the husband, and the temporal proximity between harassment and death sufficiently establish guilt.
On this section: Presumption of abetment in dowry deaths - Court applied this section to presume abetment when suicide occurred within seven years of marriage and cruelty was established, shifting burden to accused to rebut
-
Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The essential ingredients of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC are: (1) the existence of a live link or nexus between the abetment and the suicide; (2) the active role of instigation or aiding on the part of the accused; (3) the intention to aid or instigate the commission of suicide; (4) the absence of any severing of these constituents. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide falls short of the offense of abetment. Contiguity, continuity, culpability, and complicity of indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Mere domestic discord, absence of support, or property disputes, without active sustained incitement with direct causative content, cannot sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the accused's conduct was the direct, proximate, and compelling cause for the victim's suicide, and if the victim appears hypersensitive to ordinary domestic discord not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide, the accused cannot be held guilty. The court must be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances to determine whether cruelty meted out to the victim in fact induced the suicide, and the absence of complaints to police, civil suits, or evidence of specific threats substantially weakens the prosecution's case.
On this section: Permits presumption of abetment of suicide by a married woman's husband or relative if she committed suicide within 7 years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty. The court emphasized that the burden to prove preconditions lies exclusively on the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, and that such presumption does not diminish the need for affirmative proof of abetment.
-
Buddhadeb Saha vs The State of West Bengal
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 abetment of suicide. Distinguished from Section 113B. Uses the word 'may' instead of 'shall', making the presumption discretionary rather than mandatory.
-
Satish Shetty vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a trial court's judgment of acquittal is shown to be perverse through gross errors in approach and appreciation of evidence, ignoring glaring facts and credible testimonies, an appellate court is justified in interfering with such acquittal and reversing it based on the merits of the case. Specifically, in cases of cruelty leading to suicide by a married woman within seven years of marriage, once the cruelty under Section 498-A IPC is established through credible evidence, the Court may exercise its discretion to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act to convict for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, even without a specific charge under that section, where the relevant and material facts are already part of the charges framed under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The conviction should be upheld when the presumption is not rebutted by credible evidence and the trial court's acquittal judgment was patently erroneous in ignoring available evidence.
On this section: Presumption as to abetment of suicide by married woman - when suicide committed within seven years of marriage and wife subjected to cruelty by husband or his relative, Court may presume such suicide was abetted, having regard to all circumstances. Court held this is discretionary presumption but in cases where cruelty is proven, Court should rarely refuse to invoke it.
-
Sher Singh @ Partapa vs State of Haryana
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: Creates discretionary presumption that suicide of wife within seven years of marriage, if preceded by cruelty by husband or relatives, was abetted by them. Court noted this gives discretion to courts, unlike Section 113B.
-
A. K. Devaiah vs State of Karnataka
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 abetment of suicide by married woman - When suicide occurs within seven years of marriage and husband/relative subjected woman to cruelty, court may presume suicide was abetted. Referenced to establish presumption regarding abetment element in dowry-related suicides.
-
Bhupendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh
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 regarding abetment of suicide by conduct of husband or relative. Permits presumption when woman subject to cruelty commits suicide within 7 years of marriage.
-
Gurdip Singh vs State of Punjab
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 abetment of suicide by husband or relative; uses discretionary language 'court may presume'
-
S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna vs State of Karnataka
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 dowry death - presumes that if a woman's death occurs within seven years of marriage and is shown to have been caused by any burns or bodily injury, the person who caused such injury shall be deemed to have caused her death by dowry harassment
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… For better appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties it would be beneficial to reproduce the provisions contained in Section 498-A and 306 IPC as also Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. The said provisions read as under: > "498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. —Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to …
-
… Section 198A was also inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to prosecution of offences under Section 498A. Further by an amendment in the first schedule to the Cr.PC the offence under Section 498A was made cognizable and non-bailable. Of considerable significance is the introduction of Section 113A in the Indian Evidence Act by the Criminal Law (second amendment) Act, 1983 providing for presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman to be drawn if such suicide had been committed within a period of seven years from the date of marriage of the married woman and she had been subjected to cruelty. …
-
… A oral testimony of a person who is unable to specifically depose about the date and time of the un-natural and abnormal behaviour of the deceased cannot be treated as sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption available to the prosecution as contemplated under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. If the deceased was really mentally ill and she was taken to the Hospital, what prevented the defence to summon the doctor who treated the deceased or medical records are the questions that remained un-answered by the appellant. Thus, the Trial Court in the impugned judgment has rightly …
Questions about Section 113A
What have the courts held on Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act?
Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab (26 Nov 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: IEA 113A is a permissive 'may presume'; a 498A conviction plus death within seven years does not automatically prove 306 without a cause-and-effect nexus (Gurjit Singh). Another 12 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 113A, section 113A IEA, section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 13 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab (26 Nov 2019).
What should I read with Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 117 (Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 113A, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.