Dowry death presumption under Section 113B fails when foundational facts are not proved by reliable evidence.

The statutory presumption for dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act applies only after the prosecution proves foundational facts: death otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage, and cruelty or harassment soon before death in connection with dowry demand. The burden to establish these prerequisites remains on the prosecution and cannot shift to the accused. On the evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the marriage date with reliable material, omitted available documentary support, and relied mainly on belated, interested oral testimony. The conviction was therefore unsustainable because the presumption could not be invoked and the offence was not independently proved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution had established the foundational facts required to attract the presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and sustain the conviction for dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: A presumption under Section 113B arises only when the prosecution first proves that the woman died otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of marriage and that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand. The burden to establish these foundational facts rests on the prosecution; it cannot be shifted to the accused. On the evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the date of marriage with cogent material, did not produce available documentary support, and relied mainly on belated and untrustworthy oral evidence from interested witnesses. The courts below therefore erred in drawing an adverse presumption against the accused and in treating the defence as bound to disprove the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained because the prerequisite facts for invoking the statutory presumption were not proved, and the prosecution failed independently to establish the offence.

---