Dowry deaths remain a grim reality in India despite several legislative safeguards. With the enactment of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the evidentiary presumptions surrounding dowry deaths have been preserved and updated to suit contemporary legal needs.
This article delves into the presumption as to dowry death under the new law, analysing its legal basis, scope and judicial interpretations.
Dowry Death: A Legal Perspective
Dowry death refers to the demise of a woman caused by burns, bodily injury, or occurring under unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage, coupled with evidence of harassment or cruelty for dowry by her husband or his relatives. This is primarily addressed under Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (which replaces Section 304B of the IPC).
To aid in the prosecution of such offences, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam provides for a statutory presumption, simplifying the burden of proof upon the prosecution.
Statutory Provision under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 118 – 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 dowry death.”
This provision is analogous to Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but is recodified with updated terminology and numbering under the BSA.
Key Elements of Section 118
1. Death of a Woman
The presumption applies only when a woman has died. The nature of death must fall under the category of ‘dowry death’ as defined in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
2. Within Seven Years of Marriage
The timing of the death is crucial. It must occur within seven years of the woman’s marriage—a statutory limitation intended to target dowry-related abuse during the formative years of matrimonial life.
3. Cruelty or Harassment for Dowry
The woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with dowry demands. Evidence must demonstrate a proximate link between the cruelty and the death.
4. Presumption is Mandatory
Use of the words “the court shall presume” signifies that the presumption is mandatory (as opposed to permissive). However, it is rebuttable, meaning the accused can present evidence to the contrary.
Nature of the Presumption
The presumption under Section 118 is a rebuttable presumption of law. Once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts, the burden shifts to the accused to prove otherwise.
Burden of Proof
While the initial burden lies on the prosecution to show:
- unnatural death within 7 years of marriage, and
- cruelty or harassment related to dowry “soon before her death,”
Once established, the court must presume the culpability of the husband or his relatives.
Rebuttal by Accused
The accused can rebut this presumption based on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt. They may rely on:
- absence of dowry demands,
- lack of cruelty,
- medical evidence suggesting accidental or natural death, or
- evidence of a harmonious relationship.
Judicial Interpretation of Dowry Death and Presumption
Though Section 118 is new in numbering, its interpretation is guided by a rich body of jurisprudence under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 304B of IPC.
1. Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005)
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 304-B IPC (now Section 80 of the BNS) for causing dowry death of his wife, who died under suspicious circumstances within a year of her marriage. Evidence revealed continuous dowry demands and harassment by the appellant and his family.
The Court applied the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act (now Section 118 of BSA), noting that the cruelty occurred “soon before” the death and ruled out natural causes, despite the doctor’s inconclusive report. It held that the proximity between the dowry-related harassment and death was sufficient to convict the accused. The appeal challenging the conviction was dismissed, affirming seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
2. Baijnath & Ors. v. State of M.P. (2016)
In this case, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the appellants (in-laws of the deceased) under Sections 498A and 304B IPC (Sections 85 and 80 of BNS) for dowry death, which had been reversed by the High Court from a trial court acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of cruelty or harassment soon before the death in connection with a dowry demand, specifically a motorcycle.
The presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act (now Section 118 of BSA) was held inapplicable in the absence of cogent and direct evidence. The Court emphasised that suspicion due to unnatural death within seven years of marriage is not enough without proof of harassment or cruelty, and accordingly acquitted the appellants.
Significance of Presumption
The presumption under Section 118 is a crucial tool in prosecuting dowry death cases, which are often characterised by:
- lack of direct witnesses,
- domestic silence,
- victim’s inability to complain before death.
This legal presumption aids courts in reaching justice where circumstantial evidence is the primary recourse.
Criticism and Concerns
While the provision is essential for protecting women from dowry-related abuse, it has faced certain criticisms:
Possibility of Misuse: There are concerns of false implication due to strained marital relations.
Burden on Accused: Although rebuttable, the shifting of the burden may be perceived as violating the presumption of innocence.
Interpretational Ambiguity: The term “soon before” remains a subjective interpretation that varies from case to case.
Conclusion
The presumption as to dowry death under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, reinforces India’s legal commitment to combat dowry-related atrocities. While it eases the prosecution’s task in proving the accused’s guilt, it also mandates caution and fairness to prevent its misuse. A fine balance of evidentiary presumption, judicial prudence, and investigative diligence is essential for achieving justice under this framework.
References
[1] Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
[2] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
[3] Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 785
[4] Baijnath & Ors. v. State of M.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 2016
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams