Despite the stringent laws prevalent in the country against dowry death and domestic violence there has been a placenta of cases where women in the household are subjected to cruelty and harassment in the demand for dowry and other valuable securities. 

When a case relating to dowry death comes before the court,the court can draw up a presumption of dowry death upon the circumstances stated in the facts therein which amounts to shifting the onus of proof shift on the accused. The said presumption has been stated in Sec 113B of Evidence Act as, ‘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 has 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’. 

In the case of Bajinath and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2016 KHC 6768], the divisional bench of Supreme Court held that the presumption stated in Sec 113B is founded on the proof of cruelty or harassment of the women dead for or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person charged with the offence.A conjoint reading of Section 113B of Evidence Act, Sec 304B and 498A of IPC, the prosecution must substantiate the ingredients of the offences by direct and persuasive evidence in order to benefit from the presumption engrafted in Sec 113B against the accused. Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspire the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. 

The expression 'soon before her death' used in Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. Accordingly, the determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before her death' is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. The same was stated by the Hon’ble Court in Maya Devi and another v State of Haryana [2015 KHC 4785], the court stated that the key words in sec 113B ‘ shall presume’ leaves no option to the court but presume that the accused is guilty of causing dowry death. However, the redeeming factor is that the presumption is rebuttable. It enables the accused to prove his innocence and places a reverse onus of proof on him or her. The facts of the case were as follows, kavita @ Kusum was married to Karamvir and after 20-25 days of the solemnization of marriage Karamvir, his mother Maya Devi, brothers and sister stared maltreating, harassing and beating kavita on account of dowry. A complaint was lodged by Kanwar Singh father of Kavita alleging torture and harassment meted out to the deceased on account of demand of dowry who had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. In the case on hand, accused persons failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died a natural death. When Kavita allegedly committed suicide, her husband though he was not present in the house, was present in his office at M.D. University, Rohtak at the relevant time but he did not make any sincere effort to take her to the hospital which was very near to the place of the incident. The above factors clearly established the legal requirement of Sec 304B and 498A of IPC with the aid of Sec 113B of Evidence Act.