Presumption As To Dowry Death
Presumption As To Dowry Death
Introduction
Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 (IEA) deals with the presumption as to dowry
death which is defined in Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). This section
was added by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 in order to provide speedy justice
in case of dowry deaths.
Dowry
Dowry is defined under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as any property or
valuable security given to one party of a marriage by the other.
This property can be given before, during or after the marriage.
This act also states that dowry here is not Dower or Mahr as defined under the Muslim
Personal Laws.
Dowry death
Whenever there is a question of dowry death and if it is proven that the woman has been
subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in relation to any demand of
dowry. The court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death under
Section 304B of IPC.
In such cases, the prosecution has to prove that dowry death has occurred, and then
the burden of proof shifts on the accused to prove his innocence.
The presumption of dowry death will be raised only on the proof of the following
essentials.
The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed dowry
death.
The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his
relatives.
Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry.
Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.
It should have occurred during the first seven years of her marriage.
Nature of Presumption
Section 113B of IEA uses the word shall and not may and so it is a presumption of law.
It becomes obligatory on the court to raise a presumption that the accused caused the
dowry death.
Case Laws
In Shanti v. State of Haryana (1990), the Supreme Court decided that Sections 304B and
498A are not mutually exclusive. The Court has ruled that in order to convict someone
accused of causing dowry death, the prosecution must present evidence proving that
the dowry demand was accompanied by acts of harassment and cruelty.
In Satbir Singh & Ors. v. the State of Haryana (2021), the Supreme Court held that the
phrase ‘soon before’ as used in Section 304B cannot be understood to mean ‘exactly
before’, the judgement stated.