Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter VII: Of the Burden of Proof
Section 113B: Presumption as to dowry death
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
-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.
Explanation.––For the purposes of this section, “dowry death” shall have the same meaning as in section 304B 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 113B
-
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…
-
Virender Pal @ Vipin v. State of Haryana
Issue arose as regards correctness of High Court order dismissing the appeal of the accused-appellant and upholding his conviction u/s.304-B of Penal Code, 1860.
-
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raj Kumar Arora & Ors.
Issue arose whether an offence u/s.8(c) of the NDPS Act could be said to have been made out when an accused “deals with” psychotropic substances mentioned in the Schedule to the NDPS Act but not figuring in Schedule I…
-
Karan Singh v. State of Haryana
The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498-A of IPC; By the impugned judgment, the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Shoor Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
High Court, if justified in acquitting the parents-in-laws and the husband of the victim-daughter-in-law of the offences punishable u/ss.304-B and 498-A IPC.
-
Chabi Karmakar & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal
The appellants have been convicted u/ss.498A, 304B and 306 r/w.s.34 of the IPC. The Trial Court had convicted sister-in-law (appellant no.1), husband (appellant no.2) and mother-in-law of the deceased and sentenced them…
-
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
- Charan Singh @ Charanjit Singh v. The State of
- Kashibai & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Devender Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jogendra & Anr.
- Parvati Devi v. The State of Bihar Now State of Jharkhand & Ors.
- Gurmeet Singh v. State of Punjab
- Satbir Singh & Another v. State of Haryana
- Achhar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Sonu v. Sonu Yadav and Another
- Sandeep Kumar and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
- Kashmira Devi v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
- Gurjit Singh v. State of Punjab
- Mahesh Kumar v. State of Haryana
- G H Girish Singh v. The State of Uttarakhand
- Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecological Societies of India (Fogsi) v. Union of India and Others
- Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab
- Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Another v. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and Others
- Baijnath & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Rajiv Singh v. State of Bihar & Another
- Maya Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana
- Khumbaram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
- Monju Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal
- M.Narayan v. State of Karnataka
- Major Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab
- Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab
- Bhim Singh and Anr. v. State of Utiarakhand
- Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana