Sections 113B, 114 and 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Legal Presumptions Explained
Sections 113B, 114 and 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dealt with three important rules of presumption: dowry death, facts likely to have happened in the ordinary course, and absence of consent in specified prosecutions for rape. This article explains the law as it stood immediately before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force.
Section 113B - Presumption as to dowry death
Section 113B created a mandatory evidentiary presumption in a prosecution involving dowry death. Where the statutory foundational facts were established, the court was required to presume that the person concerned had caused the dowry death.
Statutory rule: When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death the woman was subjected by that person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry, the court shall presume that such person caused the dowry death.
Explanation: For this section, "dowry death" had the same meaning as in Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Meaning of dowry death under Section 304B IPC
Under Section 304B IPC, a woman's death was treated as a "dowry death" where it was caused by burns or bodily injury, or occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances, within seven years of marriage, and it was shown that soon before her death she had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or a relative of her husband for, or in connection with, a demand for dowry. The expression "dowry" took its meaning from Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Section 114 - Court may presume existence of certain facts
Section 114 empowered the court to presume the existence of a fact which it considered likely to have happened, having regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The power was discretionary and always depended on the surrounding circumstances.
Illustrations under Section 114
- A person found in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft may be presumed to be the thief or to have received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless the possession is satisfactorily explained.
- An accomplice may be presumed unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars.
- A bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, may be presumed to have been accepted or endorsed for good consideration.
- A thing or state of things shown to have existed within a period shorter than that in which it would ordinarily cease to exist may be presumed to continue.
- Judicial and official acts may be presumed to have been regularly performed.
- The common course of business may be presumed to have been followed in particular cases.
- Evidence which could be produced but is withheld may be presumed, if produced, to be unfavourable to the person withholding it.
- If a person refuses to answer a question which the law does not compel that person to answer, the answer may in appropriate circumstances be presumed unfavourable.
- When a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor, the obligation may be presumed to have been discharged.
The illustrations were not inflexible rules. Section 114 itself required the court to consider the particular facts that might make an ordinary presumption inappropriate. For example, possession of a marked coin by a shopkeeper, interruption of the usual postal course, exceptional circumstances surrounding an official act, or another plausible explanation could affect whether a presumption should be drawn.
Section 114A - Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape
Section 114A contained a mandatory presumption concerning absence of consent in the specified aggravated rape prosecutions under Section 376(2) IPC.
In a prosecution for rape under clauses (a) to (n) of Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, where sexual intercourse by the accused was proved, the question was whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped, and the woman stated in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court was required to presume that she did not consent.
Explanation: For Section 114A, "sexual intercourse" meant any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 375 IPC.
Difference between "may presume" and "shall presume"
| Provision | Nature | Effect under the Evidence Act |
|---|---|---|
| Section 113B | Shall presume | Once the statutory foundational facts were proved, the court had to draw the presumption of dowry death, subject to the legal rules governing rebuttable presumptions. |
| Section 114 | May presume | The court had discretion to draw a common-course inference after considering the facts and circumstances of the particular case. |
| Section 114A | Shall presume | Once the statutory conditions in the specified Section 376(2) IPC prosecution were satisfied, the court had to presume absence of consent. |
These expressions were defined by Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In substance, "may presume" permitted the court either to regard the fact as proved unless disproved or to call for proof; "shall presume" required the court to regard the fact as proved unless and until it was disproved.
Practical legal significance
Sections 113B and 114A were special statutory presumptions directed to particular criminal-law situations, while Section 114 expressed a broader evidentiary principle based on ordinary experience, human conduct and the normal course of business. Correct application therefore depended first on identifying the governing provision and then determining whether its foundational facts had been proved.
This article explains the statutory framework for general legal information and is not a substitute for advice on the facts of a particular case.