Presumptions in dowry death, abetment of suicide and rape

1. Why special presumptions

Cruelty to a married woman usually happens inside the matrimonial home, where the only witnesses are the accused and the family. Rape happens in private. Ordinary rules of proof leave the prosecution with little to work on, so Parliament fixed presumptions that move the onus to the accused once the foundational facts are proved. The foundational facts must always be proved first, by the prosecution, in the ordinary way.

2. Abetment of suicide by a married woman: section 117

Section 117 (old s.113A): when the question is whether the suicide of a woman was abetted by her husband or a relative of her husband, and it is shown that

• she committed suicide within seven years from the date of her marriage; and
• the husband or relative had subjected her to cruelty,

the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances, that the suicide was abetted by the husband or that relative. “Cruelty” has the meaning in section 86 of the BNS: wilful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, or harassment to coerce her or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property. The offence itself is abetment of suicide under section 108 BNS (old s.306 IPC); cruelty is punishable under section 85 BNS (old s.498A).

The presumption is not automatic. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 INSC 515, (2001) 9 SCC 618, a three-Judge Bench stressed the word “may” and the phrase “all the other circumstances of the case”: the Court must look at the whole evidence before drawing the presumption, and cruelty in the statutory sense must be proved. In Hans Raj v. State of Haryana, 2004 INSC 136, (2004) 12 SCC 257, the Court held that on slender evidence the presumption cannot be invoked; the mere fact that the woman was subjected to cruelty does not automatically give rise to a presumption that the suicide was abetted.

3. Dowry death: section 118

Section 118 (old s.113B): 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 for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that he caused the dowry death. “Dowry death” has the meaning in section 80 BNS (old s.304B IPC): death by burns or bodily injury, or otherwise than in normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, where soon before her death she was subjected to such cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative.

The prosecution must prove the ingredients of section 80 BNS: an unnatural death, within seven years of marriage, cruelty or harassment by the accused, connected with a dowry demand, soon before death. Only then does section 118 operate, and the accused must rebut it.

• Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, 2000 INSC 251, (2000) 5 SCC 207: “soon before” is a relative term. No fixed period can be laid down; there must be a proximate and live link between the cruelty and the death. Stale incidents that have ceased to affect the woman do not count.
• Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2016 INSC 1040, (2017) 1 SCC 101: the presumption is activated only on proof that the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry by the accused soon before her death. Where that foundation was not proved, the High Court could not rely on the presumption to reverse an acquittal.
• Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 2021 INSC 301, (2021) 6 SCC 1: “soon before” does not mean “immediately before”; the Court must find a proximate and live link. The Court also gave guidance to trial courts in dowry death cases, including care in examining the accused under section 313 CrPC (now section 351 BNSS) by putting every incriminating circumstance to him.

4. Absence of consent in rape: section 120

Section 120 (old s.114A): in a prosecution for rape under section 64(2) BNS (aggravated rape, for example by a police officer, a public servant, a member of the armed forces, staff of a jail or hospital, a relative or person in a position of trust, or gang rape), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without consent, and the woman states in evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent. “Sexual intercourse” means any act in section 63 BNS.

History: in Tuka Ram v. State of Maharashtra, 1978 INSC 178, AIR 1979 SC 185 (the Mathura case), two policemen were acquitted of raping a young girl in a police station because the Court found no proof that her submission was obtained by fear. The public reaction led to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983, which inserted section 114A for custodial and aggravated rapes. The presumption is rebuttable: the accused may lead evidence of consent, subject to two bars: section 48 (old s.53A) makes the victim’s character and previous sexual experience irrelevant on the issue of consent, and the proviso to section 149 forbids questions on those matters in her cross-examination.

Apart from the presumption, the Court treats the testimony of the victim as that of an injured witness. In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, 1996 INSC 75, (1996) 2 SCC 384, the Court held that a conviction can rest on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence; corroboration is not a requirement of law, and courts must deal with such cases with sensitivity.

5. Problem

Manvita, a married woman, commits suicide leaving a note saying that her husband subjected her to cruelty. Decide the relevancy of the note and the liability of the husband.

Issue. Whether the note is admissible, and whether the Court may presume abetment of suicide.

Law. Section 26(a) BSA (statement by a person who is dead as to the cause of her death or the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in it); section 117 BSA; sections 85, 86 and 108 BNS; Ramesh Kumar; Hans Raj.

Application. The suicide note is a written statement by a person now dead about the circumstances that led to her death. It is relevant under section 26(a), which applies whether the cause of death is homicide or suicide. If the prosecution proves that she died within seven years of marriage and that the husband subjected her to cruelty in the sense of section 86 BNS (the note plus supporting evidence such as complaints to her parents), the Court may presume under section 117 that he abetted the suicide. Because the presumption is discretionary, the Court will look at all the circumstances: the nature and timing of the cruelty, any other cause for the suicide, and the husband’s explanation. If the marriage was more than seven years old, there is no presumption and abetment must be proved directly under section 108 BNS.

Conclusion. The note is relevant. If the seven-year condition and cruelty are proved, the Court may presume abetment; the husband can rebut it. He can also be tried for cruelty under section 85 BNS. If there was a dowry demand and the death is shown to be a dowry death, section 118 gives a mandatory presumption instead.

How this is examined

“What are presumptions? Explain presumption in rape cases” (January 2026, ten marks), “Presumption as to dowry death” (June 2025, Law of Evidence) and the Manvita suicide-note problem (February 2025). For the long answer, define presumption and the three grades first, then deal with sections 117, 118 and 120 in turn with their BNS links, and use Kans Raj and Satbir Singh on “soon before.”