Presumption In Dowry Death Cases
🔸 Presumption in Dowry Death Cases: Overview
Dowry death is a social evil, and to tackle it, Indian criminal law includes special presumptions in favour of the prosecution to ease the burden of proving such crimes.
📜 Relevant Legal Provisions:
Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Dowry Death
If a woman dies under unnatural circumstances within 7 years of marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands, the husband or his relatives are held liable.
Section 113-B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Presumption as to Dowry Death
When the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are satisfied, the court shall presume that the accused caused the dowry death.
🔍 Key Elements for Presumption to Apply:
To invoke Section 113-B, the prosecution must show:
The woman died due to burns, bodily injury, or unnatural circumstances.
Death occurred within 7 years of marriage.
She was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or relatives.
The cruelty or harassment was in connection with dowry demands, and happened “soon before her death”.
Once these are proven, the burden shifts to the accused to disprove the presumption.
📚 Important Case Laws (Detailed Analysis)
1. Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005)
Facts:
Wife died within a year of marriage under unnatural circumstances. Evidence showed continuous dowry demands and physical harassment.
Issue:
Whether the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act was applicable.
Held:
Supreme Court held that once the basic ingredients under Section 304-B are proved, presumption under Section 113-B must be drawn. The accused failed to rebut it.
Significance:
Reinforced the mandatory nature of presumption once prosecution establishes foundational facts.
2. State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh (1991)
Facts:
The wife died of burns within 7 years of marriage. Evidence showed dowry demands but not "soon before her death".
Issue:
Whether the absence of temporal proximity of cruelty affects the presumption.
Held:
Court clarified that “soon before death” is a flexible term but must show a live link between cruelty and death.
Significance:
Established that presumption doesn't arise if there is no evidence of recent harassment.
3. Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016)
Facts:
Deceased wife committed suicide. Allegations of cruelty and dowry demands existed, but defence claimed normal relations.
Issue:
Whether suicide qualifies as unnatural death under Section 304-B IPC and whether presumption arises.
Held:
Court held that suicide is also an unnatural death. Since evidence of harassment existed, presumption was valid, and the burden shifted to the accused, who failed to discharge it.
Significance:
Expanded scope of “unnatural death” and clarified that suicide falls under Section 304-B.
4. Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana (2015)
Facts:
Victim died due to poisoning. Defence argued natural death, and there was delay in lodging FIR.
Issue:
Whether the prosecution’s delay weakens the presumption under Section 113-B.
Held:
Court held that once basic conditions are met, the presumption applies. Delay in FIR doesn’t override the presumption if credible evidence exists.
Significance:
Established that procedural lapses do not negate the presumption, if substantive elements are proven.
5. Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab (2013)
Facts:
Victim died within two years of marriage. Evidence included neighbour testimony about dowry demands.
Issue:
Can circumstantial evidence trigger the presumption?
Held:
Yes. The court held that even circumstantial evidence can establish the cruelty and link to dowry demands. Hence, the presumption was rightly drawn.
Significance:
Clarified that direct evidence is not necessary; circumstantial evidence is enough for invoking Section 113-B.
6. Major Singh v. State of Punjab (2015)
Facts:
Victim died from burn injuries. Accused claimed it was accidental. Evidence showed recent dowry harassment.
Issue:
Whether accidental death negates the presumption of dowry death.
Held:
The court rejected the “accidental” defence, citing evidence of cruelty soon before death. Presumption was upheld.
Significance:
Clarified that mere labelling a death as accidental does not negate presumption if harassment is proven.
🧾 Summary of Legal Position
| Requirement | Legal Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Death must be unnatural | Includes burns, suicide, poisoning, etc. |
| Within 7 years of marriage | Strictly applied; even 7 years + 1 day excludes presumption |
| Harassment must be “soon before death” | Flexible term; must show proximity in time |
| Presumption under Section 113-B | Mandatory once facts are proved |
| Accused’s burden | Must disprove the presumption, not just deny allegations |
⚖️ Final Notes
Presumption is not conviction – It merely shifts the burden to the accused to provide an explanation or rebut evidence.
The judiciary uses this tool to counteract social evils and ensure justice in dowry-related crimes.
Accused can rebut the presumption by showing normal relations, absence of dowry demands, or medical evidence proving natural death.
RELATED Blog
0 comments