Section 113B IEA, dealing with presumption of dowry death, provides that:
Athe prosecution must positively prove dowry death beyond reasonable doubt in every case (cf. Indian Evidence Act, Section 113B; IPC Section 304B; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324) (cf. Indian Evidence Act, Section 113B; IPC Section 304B; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324)
Bthe presumption applies only if the husband was earning more than the wife's family at the time (cf. Indian Evidence Act, Section 113B; IPC Section 304B; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324) (cf. Indian Evidence Act, Section 113B; IPC Section 304B; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324)
Cthe presumption is permissive ('may presume'), with full discretion in the trial court to apply or not (cf. Indian Evidence Act, Section 113B; IPC Section 304B; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324) (cf. Indian Evidence Act, Section 113B; IPC Section 304B; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324)
Dwhere 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 to cruelty or harassment for any demand for dowry, the Court SHALL presume that such person had caused the dowry death
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: D. 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 to cruelty or harassment for any demand for dowry, the Court SHALL presume that such person had caused the dowry death
1. Section 113B IEA (inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986): '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.'
2. The word 'shall' makes the presumption MANDATORY once the foundational facts are shown — distinguishing it from Section 113A's 'may presume'.
3. The accused must rebut the presumption to escape conviction under Section 304B IPC.
4. Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000) discussed the proximity-test for 'soon before'.
5. Hence option B is correct.
_Source: Indian Penal Code 1860 / Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 / Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Bare Acts, indiacode.nic.in) — Indian Evidence Act, Section 113B; IPC Section 304B; Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, AIR 2000 SC 2324_
Related questions
Section 357A CrPC, inserted by the 2009 Amendment Act, provides for:Section 161 IPC criminalises the taking of:Section 320 CrPC deals with compounding of offences. Compoundable offences:Section 122 IEA enacts marital privilege. It provides that:Section 60 IEA enacts the rule that oral evidence must be DIRECT, namely:Section 173 CrPC requires the officer in charge of a police station, on completion of inveSection 156 CrPC empowers the officer in charge of a police station to investigate a cogniSection 268 IPC defines 'public nuisance' as an act which causes: