Presumption as to dowry death
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 do 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 Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 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 113B, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 118 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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
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: s.113B presumption as to dowry death arises once the prosecution proves the woman died of burns/bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage and that she was subjected to dowry cruelty soon before death (Rajinder Singh).
-
Rajinder Singh vs State of Haryana
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.
-
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 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.
-
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 dowry death; uses mandatory language 'court shall presume'; applies only after prosecution establishes all factual ingredients of Section 304B IPC
-
Pathan Hussain Basha vs State of A. P
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.
-
Tarsem Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The essential ingredients of dowry death offense under Section 304B IPC, particularly the requirement that cruelty or harassment must be 'for or in connection with demand for dowry' and must occur 'soon before death,' are mandatory conditions that must be proved by the prosecution. A legal presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be invoked unless the prosecution first proves all these essential ingredients, and specifically demonstrates that dowry was demanded temporally proximate to the death. Absence of evidence of dowry demand soon before death, notwithstanding proof of harassment or cruelty on other grounds, is fatal to prosecution under Section 304B IPC.
On this section: Presumption of dowry death - legal fiction creating presumption upon proof of essentials; court held presumption cannot operate without proof of dowry demand
-
Harish Kumar vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When death of a woman occurs within seven years of marriage accompanied by evidence of dowry-related cruelty or harassment, a presumption of dowry death arises under Section 113B IPC. However, if the defense presents a credible dying declaration recorded by an impartial public official (such as a Naib Tehsildar) in the presence of a medical officer who certifies the declarant's mental fitness, and such declaration provides a detailed, coherent explanation of accidental death supported by circumstantial evidence (immediate medical intervention, medical records documenting accidental nature, prompt hospitalization), the presumption stands rebutted. The courts must carefully evaluate the totality of circumstances, including the credibility of public officials as against hearsay allegations, to determine the true factual position. A conviction for dowry death under Section 304B IPC requires proof that the death was caused by cruelty or harassment for dowry; mere proof of cruelty without causal nexus to the death is insufficient.
On this section: Presumption as to dowry death. Court held that while presumption arises once conditions are met, the defense successfully rebutted it through credible dying declaration recorded by neutral public official.
-
Kunhiabdulla vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
To constitute a dowry death under Section 304B IPC and to trigger the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, it must be established that: (1) the woman's death occurred within seven years of marriage under abnormal circumstances; (2) she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives; (3) such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with dowry demand; and (4) the temporal proximity between such cruelty or harassment and the death must be established through a proximity test where 'soon before' the death means the interval should not be much and there must exist a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death. The expression 'soon before' is not defined and its determination is left to courts based on facts and circumstances of each case, with the essential principle being that the cruelty must be proximate in time to the death and sufficiently fresh to disturb the victim's mental equilibrium.
On this section: Presumption as to dowry death; creates a rebuttable presumption that the accused caused the dowry death when the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry demand soon before her death. Court interpreted this as mandatory upon proof of essentials.
-
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 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').
-
Major Singh vs State of Punjab
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
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
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
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.
-
Gurnam Singh vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.
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.
-
Ramaiah @ Rama vs State of Karnataka
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
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.
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.
-
… In the light of the aforesaid evidence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that all the three ingredients necessary to draw the presumption of commission of the offence under Section 304 B IPC have been proved and established by the prosecution. Consequently, the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act has to be drawn against the accused and in the absence of any defence evidence to rebut the same, the Court has to hold the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304B IPC. On the basis of the same consideration, the offence under Section 498A must also be held to be proved against …
Questions about Section 113B
What have the courts held on Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act?
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab (26 Feb 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.113B presumption as to dowry death arises once the prosecution proves the woman died of burns/bodily injury otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage and that she was subjected to dowry cruelty soon before death (Rajinder Singh). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 15 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 113B 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 113B, section 113B IEA, section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. People searching for it also type 113b evidence 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 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 118 (Presumption as to dowry death), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 113B, 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.