Write a note on the Presumption as to Dowry Death

Question: Write a note on the presumption as to dowry death.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Write a note on the presumption as to dowry death.]

Answer

Under Section 113B, ‘when the question is whether a person has committed the ‘dowry death’ (as the term is defined in Section 304B, IPC) of a woman, and it is shown that, soon before her death, she had been subjected by that person to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such a person had caused the dowry death. The burden is on the accused to rebut this presumption.

In Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 2009 SC 1454], the Supreme Court held that presumption under Section 113-B is one of law. The presumption will be raised only on the proof of the following essentials. Justice S.B. Sinha laid down the proof of the following essentials to raise such presumption—

1. The question before the Court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (This means that the presumption can be raised only if the accused is being tried for the offence under Section 304B, I.P.C.).
2. The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives.
3. Such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with, any demand for dowry.
4. Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death

In a dowry death case, it is a condition precedent to the raising of the presumption that the deceased married woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for and in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death. The prosecution is required to give evidence of these circumstances so that the court draws a presumption of dowry death. Presumption as to dowry death begins to operate if prosecution is able to establish circumstances set out in Section 304B, IPC [State of Kamataka v. M.V. Manjunatha Gowda (2003) 2 SCC 188].

Moreover, the expression ‘soon before her death’ used in Section 304B, IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act connotes the idea of the proximity test. No definite period has been indicated. It has been left to be determined by the Courts depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Normally, it would imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment and death in question. There must be the existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and concerning death. The incident of cruelty having become remote in time and stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned would be of no consequence.

Where the death was by strangulation and evidence was available to show that dowry was being demanded and the accused husband was also subjecting his deceased wife to cruelty, it was held that the presumption under the section applied with full force making the accused liable to be convicted under Section 304B, IPC [Hem Chand v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 120].

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X