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. (The term “dowry death” has the same meaning as in S. 504-B of the Indian Penal Code.)
Image Source: kundansrivastava.com
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.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It has been held that the wife’s death caused by suicidal hanging is also covered by S. 113-A. (Public Prosecutor, A.P. v. T. Basava, 1989 Cri, L.J. 2330)
In a case decided by the Supreme Court, the bride’s in-laws did not allow her to go to her parents’ house, and when her father and brother came to meet her, they were driven away, complaining that a scooter and a T.V. had not been given in dowry. When the bride suffered an unnatural death within seven years of marriage, the presumption under S. 113-B was allowed to be invoked, and one of the in-laws was convicted for the dowry death. (Shantiv. State of Haryana, A.I.R. S.C. 1126)
In another case, a newly wedded wife was subjected to severe beating by her in-laws right from the date of marriage, until she died with 100 per cent burn injuries. It was held that the presumption under this section could be invoked to sentence the accused. (State of M.P. v. Sk. Lallu, 1990 Cri. L.J. 129)
In another case, the wife was shown to have died by poisoning by aluminium phosphide, within three years of marriage. However, there was no evidence that, soon before her death, she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment by the husband or any of his relatives for any demand for dowry. In the circumstances, the Court refused to invoke the presumption under S. 113-B of the Act. (Jagbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (1992) 2 Crimes 746)
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It should also be noted that the presumption under S. 113-B is not a conclusive presumption. In view of S. 4 of the Act, it is a rebuttable presumption. So, once the presumption is invoked, the burden shifts to the accused to demonstrate his innocence.