Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter VII: Of the Burden of Proof
Section 113A: Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
Where a married woman died by suicide within seven years of her marriage, and her husband or his relative is shown to have subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, considering all the circumstances, that the husband or that relative abetted the suicide. "Cruelty" has the meaning in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of 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 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 113A
-
Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a reprimand or rebuke made, an insinuation or insult voiced or even continuous acts of ill-treatment, harassment and defamation; as alleged in this case, would lead to a…
-
Lalita v. Vishwanath & Ors.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable u/ss.306, 498A, and 34 IPC; and incase the first informant dies before stepping into the…
-
Ram Pyarey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Correctness of the order of conviction against the brother-in-law for the offences punishable u/ss.306, 498-A IPC and s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in the absence of any cogent evidence.
- Nowa Bai & Anr v. State
-
Parveen Kumar v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Issue arose, if the High Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the husband u/ss. 498A and 306 IPC for subjecting the victim-wife to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide.
- Ravi Kumar v. State
-
Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s.306, Penal Code, 1860, if justified.
-
Paranagouda and Another v. The State of
Whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 498A, 304B read with s. 34 IPC and ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act; whether the conviction of the…
- Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union
- Buddhadeb Saha & Ors. v. The State of West
- Pawan Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi
- Pritam @ Sonu v. State NCT of Delhi
- Pawan Tiwari Through His Pairokar v. The State of NCT of Delhi Through Standing Counsel Criminal
- Kashibai & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Velladurai v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
- Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan & Anr. v. The State of Gujarat
- Sonu v. Sonu Yadav and Another
- Sandeep Kumar and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
- Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab
- Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (Fogsi) v. Union of India and Others
- Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another v. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and Others
- Heera Lal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
- Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab
- K.V. Prakash Babu v. State of Karnataka
- Satish Shetty v. State of Karnataka
- Maya Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana
- Bhanuben and Anr. v. State of Gujarat
- M.Narayan v. State of Karnataka
- Amrutlal Liladharbhai Kotak & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
- Bhim Singh and Anr. v. State of Utiarakhand
- Sher Singh @ Partapa v. State of Haryana
- Ak Devaiah v. State of Karnataka
- Patel Maheshbhai Ranchodbhai and Others v. State of Gujarat
- State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra & Ors.
- Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana
- Joshinder Yadav v. State of Bihar
- Chhotan Sao & Another v. State of Bihar
- Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
- Bhupendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana
- State of Rajasthan v. Girdhari Lal
- Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat
- Gurdip Singh v. State of Punjab
- S. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Ganna v. State of Karnataka
- Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab
- State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Honble Mr. Justice (Retd) Ramesh Amritlal Mehta & Ors.
- Atmaram S/O Raysingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra
- Vajresh Venkatray Anvekar v. State of Karnataka
- Rakhal Debnath v. State of West Bengal
- Rajesh Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarakhand
- Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan v. State of Kerala
- Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana
- Subhash v. Slate of Haryana
- Laxman Ram Mane v. State of Maharashtra
- Thanu Ram v. State of M.P.
- Durga Prasad and Anr. v. State of M.P.
- M/S. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore
- Suresh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.
- Bimla Devi and Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
- Anand Kumar v. State of M.P.
- Gopal v. State of Rajasthan
- Deen Dayal & Ors. v. State of U.P.
- Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab
- Rajendran & Anr. v. State Asstt. Commnr. of Police Law & Order
- Dinesh Seth v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
- Rajbabu & Anr. v. State of M.P.
- Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan
- Arvind Kumar and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Ananda Mohan Sen and Anr. v. State of West Bengal
- Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P.
- Tarakeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
- Sahebrao and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
- T. Aruntperunjothi v. State Through S.H.O., Pondicherry
- P. Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab
- Dalbir Singh v. State of U.P.
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raj Gopal Asawa and Anr.
- Hans Raj v. State of Haryana
- Hira Lal and Ors. v. State (Govt. of Nct) Delhi.
- K. Prema S. Rao and Anr. v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors.
- Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.
- Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors.
- State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Muniappan
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram and Ors.
- P.N. Krishna Lal and Ors. Etc. Etc. v. Govt. of Kerala and Anr. Etc. Etc.
- State of West Bengal v. Sri Orilal Jaiswal and Anr.
- Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh & Ors.