Quick Answer
Sections 113A and 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — two critical presumptions protecting women against dowry-related violence — have been consolidated into Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). Section 113A (presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman, a "may presume" provision) and Section 113B (presumption as to dowry death, a "shall presume" provision) are now housed within a single section. The substantive legal effect is unchanged: when a woman dies within seven years of marriage under circumstances showing cruelty or harassment for dowry soon before death, the court shall presume that her husband or relatives caused the dowry death. For suicide by a married woman subjected to cruelty, the court may presume abetment. The cross-references are updated to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS Section 80 for dowry death, Section 85 for cruelty).
What Changed
| Feature | Sections 113A-113B, Evidence Act | Section 118, BSA |
|---|---|---|
| Number of sections | Two separate sections | One consolidated section |
| Abetment of suicide presumption | S.113A — "may presume" (discretionary) | S.118 — retains "may presume" character |
| Dowry death presumption | S.113B — "shall presume" (mandatory) | S.118 — retains "shall presume" character |
| Seven-year period | Within seven years of marriage (S.113B) | Within seven years of marriage (unchanged) |
| "Soon before death" | Required for dowry death presumption | Required — unchanged |
| Cross-reference to IPC | S.304B (dowry death), S.498A (cruelty) | S.80 BNS (dowry death), S.85 BNS (cruelty) |
| Rebuttable nature | Both presumptions rebuttable | Both remain rebuttable |
Full Statutory Text
Section 113A, Evidence Act — Presumption as to Abetment of Suicide
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).
Section 113B, Evidence Act — 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 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).
Section 118, BSA — 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 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 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Key Differences
Consolidation into a single section. The BSA brings both dowry-related presumptions under Section 118. The primary text of Section 118 carries forward the "shall presume" dowry death presumption from old Section 113B. The abetment of suicide presumption (old Section 113A, "may presume") is addressed through the interplay between Section 118 and the general presumption provisions under Section 119 BSA.
Cross-reference updated to BNS. The Explanation to Section 118 defines "dowry death" by reference to Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replacing Section 304B IPC). The "cruelty" definition now draws from Section 85 BNS (replacing Section 498A IPC). The substantive definitions in the BNS mirror the IPC provisions.
"Shall presume" versus "may presume" distinction preserved. The dowry death presumption remains a "shall presume" provision — meaning the court is bound to presume dowry death once the foundational facts are established, unless the accused rebuts it. The abetment of suicide presumption remains discretionary ("may presume"). This distinction is practically significant: the "shall presume" standard effectively reverses the burden of proof onto the accused in dowry death cases.
Seven-year rule unchanged. The presumption continues to apply only where the woman's death occurs within seven years of marriage. Deaths occurring after seven years do not trigger the statutory presumption, though they may still constitute offences provable through ordinary evidence.
"Soon before death" requirement retained. The prosecution must establish that cruelty or harassment for dowry occurred "soon before" the woman's death. Courts have interpreted "soon before" flexibly — it need not be immediately before death but must be proximate enough to show a causal connection. The BSA does not define this term, leaving the existing case law framework intact.
What This Means for Practitioners
For prosecutors. The evidentiary requirements for triggering the Section 118 presumption remain the same: (a) death of a woman within seven years of marriage; (b) death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (c) the woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry by the accused; and (d) such cruelty or harassment occurred "soon before" death. Once these foundational facts are established, the court shall presume the accused caused the dowry death. The prosecution's primary task is to prove these trigger facts through independent evidence — testimony of neighbours, family members, medical reports, protection officer reports, and prior complaints.
For defence counsel. The rebuttable nature of the presumption means the accused can produce evidence to dislodge it. Effective rebuttal strategies include: demonstrating that the death was accidental or from natural causes; showing that the alleged cruelty occurred long before death (negating the "soon before" requirement); establishing that the marriage was harmonious and the allegations are fabricated; or proving that the death was not connected to any dowry demand.
Critical distinction between Section 80 BNS (dowry death) and Section 108 BNS (abetment of suicide). The Section 118 BSA "shall presume" applies specifically to dowry death under Section 80 BNS, where the woman dies "otherwise than under normal circumstances." For cases of suicide under Section 108 BNS, the "may presume" standard applies — giving the court discretion rather than imposing a mandatory presumption. Practitioners must carefully characterise the nature of the woman's death to determine which presumption applies.
The Supreme Court in a recent 2026 decision revoked bail in a dowry death case, emphasising that lower courts must not ignore the statutory presumption under Section 118 BSA when foundational facts are established. This confirms that the consolidation has not weakened the presumption's force.
Does Old Case Law Still Apply?
Yes, comprehensively. The verbatim reproduction of the substantive provisions means the extensive body of dowry death jurisprudence carries forward:
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana (1998) 3 SCC 309 — The Supreme Court clarified that the presumption under Section 113B is mandatory once the foundational facts are established. The court "shall presume" — it has no discretion to decline the presumption. This applies identically to Section 118 BSA.
Kamesh Panjiyar v. State of Bihar (2005) 2 SCC 388 — "Soon before death" does not mean "immediately before death." A reasonable proximate period showing a continuing pattern of harassment satisfies the requirement. This interpretation governs Section 118 BSA without modification.
Sher Singh v. State of Haryana (2015) 3 SCC 724 — Evidence of the victim's own previous statements, entries in the protection officer's records, and testimony of neighbours about frequent quarrels over dowry demands are sufficient to establish the foundational facts triggering the presumption.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Section 118 BSA apply to deaths occurring before 1 July 2024? The BSA applies to proceedings initiated after 1 July 2024. For deaths occurring before this date but tried after it, the substantive offence is under Section 304B IPC, but the evidentiary presumption during trial may be governed by the BSA depending on the date of proceedings. The transitional provisions in the BNSS address this issue.
Is the dowry death presumption conclusive or rebuttable? Rebuttable. "Shall presume" under the BSA means the court must presume the fact unless and until it is disproved by the accused. It is not "conclusive proof" — the accused retains the right to produce evidence to rebut the presumption. The standard for rebuttal is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Can a husband be acquitted despite the Section 118 presumption? Yes. If the accused produces evidence showing — on a preponderance of probability — that the death was not caused by or connected to dowry demands, or that cruelty was not committed "soon before" death, the presumption stands rebutted and the court must evaluate the remaining evidence on its own merits.
Does Section 118 cover both physical and mental cruelty? Yes. "Cruelty" as defined in Section 85 BNS (replacing Section 498A IPC) includes both physical harm (or danger to life, limb, or health) and mental harassment (including harassment for dowry). Persistent demands for dowry, verbal abuse, social isolation, and emotional torment all qualify.