Presumptions in Dowry Death, Abetment of Suicide and Rape (ss. 117, 118, 120) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes

Presumptions in Dowry Death, Abetment of Suicide and Rape (ss. 117, 118, 120)

Dowry deaths were killing brides behind closed doors, where the only witnesses were the very family accused of the cruelty. Proving murder “beyond reasonable doubt” was almost impossible — no one saw the pushing, the poison or the flame. So Parliament changed the rules of proof rather than the definition of the crime: once the prosecution shows a bride was harassed for dowry and died unnaturally within seven years, the law presumes the husband and his relatives caused the death, and it is for them to explain. These three sections are that shift of burden.

All three sections attack the same problem — offences against married women and against victims of rape, where direct proof is peculiarly hard — by making the court presume the crucial fact once foundational facts are shown. The exam discriminator is always the same: which are “may presume” and which are “shall presume”?

A. Abetment of suicide by a married woman — s. 117 (MAY presume)

Section 117 (old IEA s. 113A): where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage, and it is shown that her husband or his relative subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume (having regard to all the circumstances) that the suicide was abetted by the husband or that relative. “Cruelty” bears the meaning given in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (old IPC s. 498A).

Note the setting: it is “may presume” — discretionary. The court is permitted, not obliged, to draw the inference of abetment, and only after weighing all the circumstances. Cruelty alone is not automatic proof of abetment.

B. Dowry death — s. 118 (SHALL presume)

Section 118 (old IEA s. 113B): where the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman, and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected by that person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume that that person caused the dowry death. Read it with the offence itself — BNS s. 80 (old IPC s. 304B): the death of a woman by burns, bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, where she was so harassed soon before her death.

Here the words are “shall presume” — mandatory. Once the foundational facts (unnatural death within seven years + cruelty for dowry soon before death) are proved, the court is bound to presume the accused caused the dowry death; the burden then lies on the accused to rebut it. The two limbs the prosecution must first establish are (i) death otherwise than in normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and (ii) cruelty/harassment for dowry “soon before” the death — a phrase the courts read as requiring a proximate and live link, not any remote past cruelty.

Section 120 (old IEA s. 114A): in a prosecution for certain aggravated forms of rape, where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without consent, and the woman states in her evidence that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent.

Again “shall presume” — mandatory and burden-shifting: once intercourse is proved and the woman testifies to absence of consent, the law presumes there was none, and it is for the accused to show consent. It is a rebuttable presumption, but it relieves the prosecutrix of having to prove the negative of consent from scratch.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — spotting “may” from “shall”

Facts. A bride dies of burns in her matrimonial home fourteen months after marriage. The prosecution proves she was beaten and taunted for a motorcycle her family had not paid, up to the week she died.

Rule. On an unnatural death within seven years preceded by dowry cruelty “soon before” death, the court shall presume dowry death (s. 118, with BNS s. 80); on a suicide within seven years preceded by cruelty, the court may presume abetment (s. 117).

Apply. The foundational facts of s. 118 are made out — unnatural death within seven years and dowry cruelty soon before death. The court is bound to presume the husband/relatives caused the dowry death; the burden shifts to them to rebut it. Had she instead committed suicide, s. 117 would apply, and the court may (not must) presume abetment.

Conclusion. Same family, same cruelty — but the presumption is mandatory for a dowry death (s. 118) and discretionary for an abetted suicide (s. 117). Naming which is the discriminator that scores.

⚠️ Do NOT write that s. 117 and s. 118 both use “shall presume”. Section 117 (abetment of suicide) is “may presume” — discretionary; only s. 118 (dowry death) and s. 120 (rape consent) are “shall presume”. Swapping them is the single most common error on this question and costs the whole discriminator mark.

Section 118, BSA 2023: “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.”

Section 120, BSA 2023: “In a prosecution for rape… where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent.”

In Simple Terms: Where a bride is harassed for dowry and then dies unnaturally within seven years, the court must presume her tormentor caused the death (s. 118). Where a woman testifies she did not consent and intercourse is proved, the court must presume there was no consent (s. 120). But where she commits suicide after cruelty, the court only may presume abetment (s. 117). The burden, in the two “shall” cases, shifts to the accused.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Special presumptions for offences<br/>against women"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["s. 117 — abetment of suicide<br/>suicide within 7 yrs + cruelty<br/>court MAY presume abetment"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["s. 118 — dowry death<br/>unnatural death within 7 yrs +<br/>dowry cruelty 'soon before' death<br/>court SHALL presume (with BNS s. 80)"]:::diamond
    ROOT --> C["s. 120 — rape<br/>intercourse proved + woman says<br/>'no consent'<br/>court SHALL presume no consent"]:::diamond
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef diamond fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Hira Lal vs State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi (2003) — the words “soon before” in s. 113B (now s. 118) require a proximate and live link between the dowry cruelty and the death; there must be no long, broken interval.
Kans Raj vs State of Punjab (2000) — once the prosecution proves the ingredients of dowry death, the s. 113B (s. 118) presumption is mandatory and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut it.
Sham Lal vs State of Haryana (1997) — cruelty must be “soon before” death; where the harassment was remote and not proximate, the s. 118 presumption is not attracted.
State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh (1996) — the testimony of a rape victim is entitled to weight; the s. 114A (now s. 120) presumption reinforces that once intercourse and her denial of consent are shown, absence of consent is presumed.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BSA (Law of Evidence) topics

Presumptions in Dowry Death, Abetment of Suicide and Rape (ss. 117, 118, 120) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes