A

PROJECT ON LAW OF EVIDENCE

TOPIC: PRESUMPTION AS TO PROOF DOWRY DEATH

SUBMITTED TO:

MR. PRAMOD RANJAN

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

SUBJECT: LAW OF EVIDENCE

SUBMITTED BY:

SMRITTI SHAJI MATHEW

B.COM. LL.B.

ROLL NO. 21, SEMESTER, VI

DATE OF SUBMISSION: MARCH’ 3rd, 2015

THE SCHOOL OF LAW

GURU GHASIDAS CENTRAL UNIVERSITY, BILASPUR

DECLARATION

I Smritti Shaji Mathew, Roll No. 21, B.com. LL.B, Semester VI of Guru Ghasidas University do

hereby declare that, this project is my original work and I have not copied this project or any part

thereof from any source without due acknowledgement. I am highly indeed to the authors of the

books that I have referred in my project as well as all the writers of the articles and owners of the

information taken from the website for it. It is only because of their contribution and proper

guidance of my faculty advisor, that I was able to gather light on the subject.

Smritti Shaji Mathew

B.com. LL.B. (Semester VI)

CERTIFICATE

I am glad to submit the Project Report on “Presumption as to proof Dowry Death” as a part of

my academic assignment. The project is based on the Research Methodology. It further studies

meaning, Sources and methods of Research Methodology and further discusses the Interview

Method. I hope this would be significant for academic purposes as well as prove informative to

all readers.

Here though I declare that this paper is an original piece of research and all borrowed texts and

ideas have been duly acknowledged.

Smritti Shaji Mathew

Roll No. 21 Faculty Signature:

B.com. LL.B. Semester VI

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my earnest ad deepest gratitude to, Mr. Pramod Ranjan, Faculty for Law

of Evidence for giving me this opportunity to do a project on such valuable topic of

“Presumption as to proof dowry death”. I am grateful for the assistance, guidance and support

that were excluded during the course of excellent research. I am also thankful to the college

administration for providing the resources necessary for research work and project preparation.

Above all I think the God almighty for blessing me with the health and vitality to complete this

project.

Smritti Shaji Mathew

Roll No. 21

B.com. LL.B. Semester VI

ABSTRACT

The term presumption in its large and most comprehensive sense may be defined as an inference

affirmative or disaffirmative of truth or falsehood of a doubtful fact or proposition drawn by a

process of probable reasoning from something proved or taken to be granted. The burden of

proof deals with presumption. It is an inference that the court is directed to draw from certain

facts of certain cases. It can also be said that the proof of certain facts, the law will sometimes

infer the existence of another fact that need to be expressly proved.

The term "dowry death" and "dowry murder" first began to be used around 1977-78 when

investigations revealed that deaths of married women, which for years had been camouflaged by

the police as accidents or suicides, were actually murders or abetted suicides, preceded by

prolonged physical and mental torture by the husband and in-laws in connection with dowry

demand. Instead of describing them as "wife murders" or "abetted suicides" the women's

organizations began calling them "dowry deaths".

The section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the dowry death. Section 113B states

that: 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 has 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.

I. INTRODUCTION

The problem of Dowry has always been persistent in India and is also rising at a rapid rate and so

are the offences related to dowry demand. Dowry demands can go on for years together. The

birth of children and a number of customary and religious ceremonies often tend to become the

occasions for dowry demands. The inability of the bride’s family to comply with these demands

often leads to the daughter-in-law being treated as a pariah and subject to abuse. In the worst

cases, wives are simply killed to make way for a new financial transaction—that is, another

marriage. The Section 304-B, IPC has been inserted by the Dowry Prohibition Amendment Act,

1986 with a view of combating increased menace of dowry deaths. The Supreme Court in the

case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram1 interestingly started off the judgment with the

words ‘Dowry, dowry and dowry’. The Supreme Court went on to explain why it has mentioned

the words ‘dowry’ thrice. This is because demand for dowry is made on three occasions:

(i) before marriage;

(ii) at the time of marriage; and

(iii) After the marriage.

The term dowry is defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act, “dowry” means any property or

valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to  either party to

the marriage or to any other person;

at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but

does not include dower or Mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law

(Shariat) applies.

Greed being limitless, the demands become insatiable in many cases, followed by torture of the

girl leading to either suicide in some cases or murder in some. The Supreme Court has explained

in this case that though the definition of ‘dowry’ is stated as ‘property or valuable security given

1 (1995)Cri LJ 4184 (SC)

or agreed to be given…’ demands made after marriage could also be a part of the consideration

because an implied agreement has to be read to give property or valuable securities, even if

asked after the marriage as a part of consideration for the marriage when the Dowry Prohibition

Act 1961 was enacted, the legislature was well aware of the fact that demands for dowry are

made and indeed very often even after the marriage has been solemnized and this demand is

founded on the factum of marriage alone. Such demands, therefore, would also be in

consideration for marriage.

Under S. 113-B, when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death 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.

S. 113-B raises a presumption of guilt against any person who has been proved to have subjected

the deceased woman, soon before her death, to cruelty or harassment, in connection with dowry.

Needless to state, it is a presumption intended to be raised against the husband and his relatives

in the case of dowry deaths, which have become increasingly common in India.

Research and Methodology

Title

Presumption as to proof Dowry Death

Problem

To know the topic Presumption as to proof Dowry Death

Rationale

To study the proximity test of dowry death

To study the explanation Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Objective of the project

To analyze the presumption of Dowry Death

To study the Ill- treatment for Dowry not soon before death

To study the Proof of Dowry Death

To study the Cruelty by Husband or Relatives for Dowry

Review of literature

Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence

The Law of Evidence by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, is an important book which

deals with the presumption so as to proof Dowry Death..

Batul Lal, The Law of Evidence

This book provides the knowledge about a Priority Sectors

Source of Data

The project is limited by constrains of mine, space and financial resources. The Project, while

facing constrains, is further limited in its approach to the problem of the present project. Audit of

Accounts under Company Law is somewhat is broad topic, it requires a lot of research work.

Including articles of with leading scholars on the topic which could not be possible since

primarily sources were not available to gather information. Therefore, the main sources of

information are books, e-books, and websites. The data and information given in this project is

based on matter gathered from books and websites.

Method of Research

The method of research of the project report is based purely on the doctrinal method. This

research paper is both descriptive and analytical in approach. It is largely based on secondary and

electronic sources. Literature review has been done extensively in order to make a

comprehensive presentation. Books and other reference materials from the Guru Ghasidas

University were also helpful for the completion of this research paper.

Time limit: It took 3 weeks for the completion of the Project Report on Data Collection and

interview Methods.

II. CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVES

Section 113A: This section deals with ‘Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married

woman’. It reads as follows:

“When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been

abetted by her husband or any relative or her husband and it is shown that she had

committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and

that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court

may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such

suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.”

Explanation: - For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ shall have the same meaning as in

section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860.” This section was introduced by the

Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. The Indian Penal Code, the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Evidence Act were amended keeping in view the dowry death

problems in India.

The section requires proof that

(1) that her husband or relatives subjected her to cruelty and

(2) that the married woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from

the date of her marriage.

If these facts are proved, the court ‘may’ presume. The words are not ‘shall’ presume. Such a

presumption can be drawn only after the court has taken into account all the circumstances of the

case. The inference would then be that the ‘husband or relatives’ abetted her suicide.

If there is no evidence of cruelty, the section does not apply State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh2. In

State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Nikku Ram,3 it was held that in the absence of any evidence to

show that the diseased was being harassed within the meaning of Explanation I(b) of section

498A IPC, the presumption under sec. 113A cannot be raised. The Supreme Court, in State of

2 AIR 1991 SC 15323 AIR 1996 SC 67

West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal 4considered the question as to ‘standard of proof’. It observed that

in a criminal trial, the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceeding. In a

criminal trial, however intriguing may be the facts and circumstances of the case, the charges

made against may be in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond

reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of sec. 498-A in the Indian

Penal Code and section 113-A in the Evidence Act.

Although, the Court’s conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there

are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it

should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the

question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable

doubt must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the cases and the quality of evidence

adduced in the case and the materials placed on record. The doubt must be of a reasonable man

and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted of a reasonable and just man for coming to

the conclusion considering the particular subject matter.

Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offences to be

investigated. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful

doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. The court should be extremely

careful in assessing evidence under sec. 113A for finding out if cruelty was meted out. If it

transpires that a victim committing suicide was hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord

and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and

such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced

individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court would not be

satisfied for holding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide was guilty.

The section has also been interpreted in Lakhjit Singh vs. State of Punjab5 and Pawan Kumar vs.

State of Haryana6 and Shanta vs. State of Haryana.7

III. DOWRY DEATH- PROXIMITY TEST

4 AIR 1994 SC 14185 1994 Suppl (1) SCC 1736 1998(3) SCC 3097 1991(1) SCC 371

Proximity test serves as a legitimate test in determining whether it would be legitimate in the

particular facts and circumstances of case to draw a presumption of abetment of suicide under

section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act by reason cruelty. The importance of proximity test in

the matters of presumption can also be appreciated by referring to the provision of 113-B of the

Evidence Act.

In Niharbala v. State, 1988 (11) CHN 398,8 there was history of ill-treatment and cruelty towards

the wife. She was driven from the matrimonial home and was even not allowed to take her

sucking baby with herself. She could recover her child by taking recourse to law. Later there was

settlement between the husband and the wife, till she committed suicide after one month and ten

days. The question arose whether certain statement made by the deceased wife to some of the

witness concerned the acts of torture and ill treatment meted out to her were relevant and

admissible? The High Court observed that such statements have no proximate relation to her

death. Though the legislature has used the expression “shall presume’ in section 113-B of the

Indian Evidence Act instead of “may presume’ having regard to all other circumstances of the

case as in section 113-A of the act, yet even in section 113-B the proximity test has been

assigned a definite role for determining whether it is a fit case for invoking the compelling or

that it was called the presumption of law as envisaged in that section.9 The expression ‘and 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,” asused in section 113-B is

pregnant with the idea of proximity test. The cruelty or harassment must have been committed

soon before her death. This reflects the insignia of proximity test.10

In Chanchal Kumari v Union of India,11 there were no evidence of abetment and hence the

accused was entitled of the charge under 306 I.P.C.

8 AIR 1992 SC 1817.9 Case refer- Sarad Birdhichand sarda v. state of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622. “where death is a logical culmination of a continuous drama, long in process and as it were final of story, the statements regarding each step directly connected with the end of drama would be admissible because the entire statement would have to be read as an organic role and not torn from the context.10 Ibid.11 AIR 1986 SC 752

On the other hand, in the case of Paumarthy prabhakar Rao v State12, there was ample evidence

of harassment, ill treatment and Cruelty and presumption under Section 113-A has been raised.

(a) Either of suicide to which the woman was driven by such persistent of dowry, and

(b) Of homicide.

The sixth factor deals with the nature of the act (accident, suicide, homicide). This is the most

difficult to detect.

The seventh factual component of dowry deaths relates to the locale of death. A dowry death

always takes place within the closed doors. Proof of the cause of death is an arduous task

because of the scanty available evidence. Hence legal presumption are of a great help in this

respect.

The eighth factor is concerned with the ‘reporting’ of the death. There is a scope for an

improvement. It is suggested that an obligation to report the death of the woman to the police

should be imposed in every case. The provision should be that where a married woman dies

within 5 years of her marriage as a result of burn or injuries sustained by her husband

immediately before her death, or from other cause of similar nature and her husband, on

becoming aware that his wife has so died, does not, within a reasonable time, inform the nearest

police officer or magistrate about her death, the husband shall, in the absence of reasonable

excuse, be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years or with

fine or with both. This provision can be appropriately inserted in the Indian Penal Code.13

12 1995 (1) Crimes 434.13 91st Law Commission Report on Dowry Deaths and Law reforms, 1983, pp.3-4.

IV. EXPLANATION SECTION 304-B OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

Dowry death where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs

otherwise than wise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage and it shown

that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for or in

connection with any demand for dowry such death shall be called “dowry death” and such

husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation- For the purpose of this section ‘dowry’ shall have the same meaning as in section 2

of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Section 113-B creates a presumption for dowry death according to this section when the question

before the court is whether the person has caused dowry death of a woman and it is proved by

evidence that soon before her death such women had been subjected by such person to cruelty or

harassment for “in connection with the demand for dowry” it shall be presumed by the court that

such persons have caused the dowry death.

Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than

under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before

her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her

husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called” dowry

death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

To invoke Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code the following ingredients are essential:

1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise

than under normal circumstances.

2. Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.

3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any

relative of her husband.

4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of

dowry.

5. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman

soon before her death.

One of the important ingredients to attract the provision of dowry death is that the death of the

bride must relate to the cruelty or harassment on account of demand for dowry. It is true that

Section 304-B does not define cruelty. However, under explanation of Section 113-B of the

Evidence Act, by which presumption of dowry can be drawn, it has been provided that ‘cruelty’

shall have the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. As per requirement of

clause (b) appended to section 498-A I.P.C. there should be a nexus between harassment and any

unlawful demand for dowry.

If these conditions are fulfilled then a presumption acts under the Indian Evidence Act and the

burden of proof shifts on the accused to prove that he is innocent.

V. DOWRY DEATH- EVIDENCE IN- NEED OF CLOSE SCRUTINY

In cases of Dowry death, generally the evidence will not be that of the deceased or the close

relation or friends of the deceased. Not only the events that are known to the persons acquainted

with the deceased, but the statements alleged to have been made by the deceased about

harassment or ill treatment or cruelty will also assume importance. Letters, if any, that have been

written by the deceased to her relations or friends touching the harassment or cruelty also have

got a material bearing. In each and every case, Court is to consider the status of the parties, the

conduct of the parties and the strained relations and the events that took place from the date of

the marriage till the date of the death to arrive at a conclusion whether the demand as such as put

forward by the prosecution is correct or not. There is no presumption in law that the relatives are

bound to make false statements. But such persons although they would not protect the real

culprit, still would naturally have a tendency to exaggerate or add facts even unconsciously

making it absolutely necessary for the Court to examine their evidence with very great care and

caution. - P. Bikshapati v.State of A.P.14

In absence of any evidence that wife was treated with cruelty or harassed with ddemand for

dowry during 15 days period between she came back to matrimonial home and her tragic end, no

presumption of dowry death can be raised.- Sukhdev v. State of Maharashtra15

14 1989 Cri LJ 1186 (AP): (1988) 2 Andh LT 946; 1989 APLJ (Cri) 9.15 1997 Cri LJ 1927 (SC): AIR 1997 SC 1849: 1997 AIR SCW 1587: 1997 (34) All Cri C 548.

VI. ILL- TREATMENT FOR DOWRY NOT SOON BEFORE DEATH- ACCUSED

COULD NOT BE CONVICTED

There must be a material to show that soon before her death victim was subjected to cruelty and

harassment. There must not be the possibility of natural or accidental death. If the alleged

incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become state enough to not to disturb the mental

equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would of no consequences.16

Once it is established by the prosecution that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected

to harassment and cruelty in non-connection with demand for dowry; it will be presumed by the

court that the suicide was committed by the deceased.17

In Kans Raj v state of Punjab,18 the Supreme Court explained ‘soon before’ which occurs in

section 113-B. The Supreme Court held that the term ‘soon before’ is a relative term which is

required to be considered under specific circumstances of each case, and no straight jacket

formula can be laid down by fixing any time. This expression is pregnant with idea of proximity

bar. In relation to Dowry deaths, the circumstances showing the existence of cruelty and

harassment to be deceased are not restricted to particular instances, but normally refer to cause of

conduct. Such conduct may be spread over a period of time. If cruelty or harassment of demand

or dowry is shown to have persisted, it should be deemed to be soon before the death, if any

other intervening circumstances showing the non-existence of such treatment are not brought on

record before alleged transaction date of death. It does not however mean that such time can be

stretched to any period. The proximity and the link between the effect of cruelty based on Dowry

demand and consequential death is required to be proved by the prosecution.

Moreover no presumption under section 113-B of Evidence Act would be drawn against accused

if it is shown that after alleged demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment the dispute stood

resolved and there was no evidence of cruelty and harassment thereafter. Mere lapse of time

would not provide itself to an accused a defence.

16 Bakshi Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 2011 SC 691 at p.69617 Amar Singh v state of Rajasthan, AIR 2010 SC 3391 at p. 3395.18 AIR 2000 SC 2324

If it has been held by the Supreme Court that the term ‘soon before’ used in the section does not

imply ‘immediately before’ as there are not synonyms. The wife died within 7 years of marriage,

evidence of harassment and demand of dowry coupled with torture was there. Hence, it was a

case of dowry death under section 113-B.19

The expression ‘soon before her death’ used in section 304-B, IPC and Section 113-B of

Evidence Act connotes the idea of 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 crueklty or

harassment and death in question.

19 Kailash v state of M.P., AIR 2007 SC.

VII. PROOF OF DOWRY DEATH

Where death of wife has caused due to strangulation within 7 years and dead body was found in

black mark on neck. The evidence showed that deceased was subjected to cruelty and torture

regularly due to non-fulfillment of dowry demand and also prior to her death. Essential

ingredients of dowry had been proved and presumption against accused for causing death was

available, as such, conviction of accused was proper. – Jageshwar Mahto v state of Bihar.20

Under the traditional English legal system, in a criminal case, the jury is directed that “the

prosecution should satisfy you beyond any reasonable doubt”. It states on whom the burden lies:

on the prosecution; that the burden is a heavy one: beyond reasonable doubt; and that ‘beyond

any reasonable doubt’ conveys a meaning “to ordinary jurors without any lawyers’ elaboration or

without any qualification that might dilute the degree of probability of guilt called for.”21

According to S. 113-A, Evidence Act, 1872, if the question is whether a suicide by a woman had

been abetted by her husband or his relatives and it is shown that it was committed within a period

of seven years from her marriage and that her husband or the relative had subjected her to

cruelty, the Court may presume, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by the

relative.22The three essentials in such a case are-

1) The suicide had been committed within a period of 7 years and

2) Her husband or such relative of husband had subjected her to cruelty.

Both the conditions need to be satisfied. The defence will have to prove that seven years of the

marriage have elapsed and that the wife had not been subjected to any cruelty. The explanation

to the section states that the definition of ‘cruelty’ should be derived from section 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code.23

In the case of State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & another,24 the Supreme Court stated that

though it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable 20 2001 Cri LJ 4589 (Jhar.)21 The Quantum of Burden of Proof in a Criminal Trial, LJ Blom-Cooper, Modern Law Review, March 1969, pp. 217-22022 Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, 187223 S. 498-A. Cruelty24 AIR 1994 SC 1418

doubt, as soon as it is successfully shown that the suicide was committed within one year and

due to cruelty by the husband or any of his relative, the burden of proof shifts on the accused to

show that no such cruelty had taken place. In the recent case of Atmaram v. State of

Maharasthra,25 the Supreme Court stated that to draw up presumption in cases of suicide

committed by a woman within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, there must

first be evidence to establish that such husband or the relative of her husband committed cruelty

of the nature described in clauses (a) or (b) of the Explanation to Section 498A, IPC.26

Section 113-B of the Evidence Act states that presumption would be that any person who had

cruelly treated a woman in connection to any demands of dowry immediately before the death of

the woman would be presumed to have committed dowry death. The explanation to the section

states that dowry death under this section would be same as the definition of dowry death under

Section 304 B of the Indian Penal Code.27 The definition of ‘Dowry’ under the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 must be referred to.28

VIII. SUGGESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS

25  Read from: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=4003126 Ibid27 Section 304 B, Indian Penal Code28 Section 2, Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

1. Awareness : The first and foremost solution to the problem of dowry deaths is

awareness, taking into account the illiteracy rates in India most of the women who are

subject to the evil of dowry harassment are unaware of their legal rights. Thus the

most important task is to create awareness this can be achieved by setting up

awareness programmes and initiative in different sections of the society.

2. Education: This is another approach to increase awareness by educating people about

such issues and imbibing such social issues in to the curriculum of primary education.

3. Stringent Punishments and speedy trials: Imparting stringent punishments to the

people convicted of such crimes can also help to create a deterrent effect. Also,

speedy trial system also works in favour of the victim and acts as a deterrent.

4. Enforcement Mechanisms to be strengthened: We see that in the Indian scenario

there are legislations like the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Indian Penal Code and also

legislations like The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act are in place

but still the problem of dowry demand continues, thus it is high time that the

enforcement of these legislations should be strengthened.

 

IX. CONCLUSION

Dowry death are difficult to establish and hence in majority of dowry death cases, the evidence is

made available which is based upon presumption such as dying declaration, circumstantial

evidence, motive etc. At times, secondary evidences are also used by prosecution in establishing

dowry death. Presumption plays a major role in establishing the caes against the accused.

Presumptions are scattered under different sections of the Indian Evidences Act. They are

defined, to be an inference, affirmative or disaffirmative of the truth or falsehood of doubtful fact

or proposition, drawn by the process of probable reasoning from something proved or taken for

granted.

Section 113-A and 113-B has also been especially incorporated by the legislative to establish

dowry death and suicide in relation to dowry. Dying declaration stands upon the same footing as

another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances dying

declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the court in its correctness.

Through the legislature has used the expression ‘shall presume’ in section 113-B of the Indian

Evidence Act, yet even in section 113-B the proximity test has been assigned a definite role.

The ‘Burden of proof’ plays an important role. The initial burden, in case of dowry death lies on

the prosecution. One dowry death is established burden shifts on the accused to discharge that he

has not committed the offence. But till the burden of proof is not shifted as a whole on the

accused person, presumptions will not be able to play major role.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books referred: -

1. Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, Lexis Nexis, (Wadhwa and Company law

publishers, Nagpur, 2002).

2. Batul Lal, The Law of Evidence, (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 1999)

3. Ursekar, H.S., Monir Law of Evidence, (The University Book Agency, Allahabad, 1991)

4. Paras Diwan, Law Relating to Dowry Death, Bride Burning Rape and Related offences,

(Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, 2002).

Websites referred: -

1. http://modelgovernance.com/burden-of-proof-dowry-death/

2. http://infochangeindia.org/women/judicial-interventions-and-women/dowry-deaths-and-

dying-declarations.html

3. http://www.shareyouressays.com/119152/presumption-as-to-dowry-deaths-under-section-

113-b-of-indian-evidence-act

4. http://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/pre_mat.htm

5. http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/185threport-partiiib.pdf

6. www.hanumant.com/LOE-Unit11-BurdenOfProof.html

EVIDENCE ACT

Topic: “Presumption as to Dowry Death”

Synopsis

X. Introduction

XI. Cruelty by Husband or Relatives

XII. Dowry Death- Proximity Test

XIII. Explanation Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860

XIV. Dowry Death- Evidence in- Need of Close Scrutiny

XV. No proof of Dowry Death or Cruelty- Conviction not proper

XVI. Ill- treatment for Dowry not soon before death- Accused could not be convicted

XVII. Proof of Dowry Death

XVIII. Suggestions and solutions

XIX. Conclusion.

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Mr. Pramod Ranjan Smritti Shaji Mathew

Assistant Professor B.com LL.B. VI-Sem