This section says the accused is automatically guilty with no defense possible.

Courts have clarified it creates a rebuttable presumption — the accused can present evidence to prove innocence; it just shifts who must prove what.

Any harassment at any time before death triggers this presumption.

Courts require the cruelty or harassment to be 'soon before' death, meaning a reasonably proximate and live connection, not something from years earlier with no continuing link.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023

Section 118

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.§

Why this exists

This provision continues Section 113B of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which Parliament inserted in 1986 after growing public outrage over dowry deaths and 'bride burning' cases where husbands and in-laws often escaped conviction because direct proof of murder was hard to get — deaths happened behind closed doors, sometimes staged as suicide or accident. Lawmakers shifted the burden of proof once prosecution shows harassment for dowry and death within the specified period, making it easier for courts to hold perpetrators accountable while still allowing the accused a chance to rebut the presumption.

How courts read it

Under the predecessor Section 113B, the Supreme Court repeatedly clarified how this presumption works. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) and Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001), courts held that 'soon before death' must show a proximate and live link between cruelty/harassment and death — not a distant or stale connection, but it need not mean immediately before death. In Shanti v. State of Haryana (1991), the Court held that once the prosecution proves cruelty for dowry and death within the statutory period, the presumption is mandatory, shifting the burden to the accused to prove innocence on a preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. Courts have cautioned against misuse but have also stressed the provision's protective, welfare-oriented purpose.

Common misconceptions

Myth: This section says the accused is automatically guilty with no defense possible.
Fact: Courts have clarified it creates a rebuttable presumption — the accused can present evidence to prove innocence; it just shifts who must prove what.
Myth: Any harassment at any time before death triggers this presumption.
Fact: Courts require the cruelty or harassment to be 'soon before' death, meaning a reasonably proximate and live connection, not something from years earlier with no continuing link.