Two recent deaths in Bhopal and Greater Noida — Twisha Sharma and Deepika Nagar — have once again drawn national attention to allegations of dowry harassment, cruelty by in-laws, and the legal battle over how such deaths are classified. In both cases, injuries were allegedly found on the women’s bodies. Yet, in both instances, the in-laws reportedly maintained that the women died by suicide while denying allegations of dowry harassment.
The distinction is far from semantic. Under Indian criminal law, the difference between a “dowry death” and “abetment of suicide” can fundamentally alter the burden of proof, the legal presumptions applied by courts, and ultimately, the outcome of a trial.
A dowry death is treated as a far graver offence. Under Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) — previously Section 304B of the IPC —, a woman’s unnatural death within seven years of marriage, coupled with evidence of dowry-related cruelty “soon before death”, constitutes dowry death. The law treats such cases as a form of culpable homicide linked to dowry demands, where the husband or in-laws are accused of directly causing the woman’s death or murder.
Abetment of suicide, on the other hand, is considered a narrower and comparatively less severe charge. Under Section 108 of the BNS, prosecutors must establish that the accused actively instigated, aided, or intentionally drove the deceased to take her own life. Courts have historically held that ordinary marital discord or vague allegations of harassment are insufficient to sustain such a charge.
The distinction becomes even more significant because of the presumptions built into Indian evidence law. Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), the new Evidence Act, states that when it is shown that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demands soon before her death, “the court shall presume” that the accused caused the dowry death.
This presumption substantially changes how courts approach such prosecutions. Once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts — an unnatural death within seven years of marriage and evidence of dowry-linked cruelty — the burden shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption.
HOW DOWRY DEATH LAWS SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Advocate Mishika Singh says this distinction directly impacts “presumptions, burden of proof, and outcomes in trial”. In dowry death cases, once the prosecution proves these foundational facts, the law itself presumes culpability against the husband and in-laws.
As a result, courts are generally more cautious while granting anticipatory or regular bail in dowry death cases. The punishment is also significantly harsher, carrying a minimum sentence of seven years that may extend to life imprisonment.
Advocate Sumeer Sodhi notes that courts tend to show greater sensitivity in dowry death prosecutions because of this statutory framework. Once evidence of dowry-linked cruelty emerges, the accused face a much steeper legal challenge.
Senior Advocate Avi Singh says this legal structure also explains why families often insist that the woman died by suicide.
“The first way to rebut the presumption of murder through dowry death is to claim that somebody self-inflicted the harm that led to the death,” he says.
Singh adds, “Murder is always a higher charge than abetment to suicide, even if there is cruelty. You can argue mental health or stress also. Proving abetment to suicide is a very complex issue”.
For years, abetment of suicide cases operated very differently under the law. Courts repeatedly held that there must be evidence of direct or indirect incitement and a proximate connection between the conduct of the accused and the suicide. The Supreme Court has consistently clarified that abetment involves a mental process of instigation and conduct so severe that the victim felt she had no option except suicide.
However, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 has introduced an important shift. Section 117 of the BSA now creates a presumption regarding abetment of suicide by a married woman. It states that where a woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage and it is shown that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives, the court may presume that the suicide was abetted by them.
The wording is legally significant. In dowry death cases under Section 118, the court “shall presume” culpability once the ingredients are established, making the presumption stronger and mandatory in nature. In abetment cases under Section 117, however, the court “may presume” abetment after considering the surrounding circumstances, leaving greater room for judicial discretion.
WHY LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS MAY NOT ENSURE CONVICTION
Senior Advocate Rebecca John, however, told India Today that the practical impact of these provisions will become clearer only once more cases under the new law begin reaching courts.
“Most cases that have come up so far are under the old law. The strength of the new law will have to be decided in the cases that come up now,” she says.
John also cautions that legal presumptions do not automatically guarantee convictions.
“Even when there is presumption, there is often a flawed understanding of what presumption means,” she explains. “The prosecution still has to establish the parameters of the offence. It doesn’t magically result in convictions.”
She notes that contradictions or weaknesses in evidence collection can seriously weaken a prosecution.
“Presumption does not discharge the investigation agencies and prosecution from their responsibility to lay down the elements of the offence,” she says.
Avi Singh similarly points out that it will take years before courts fully interpret the impact of the new evidence law.
“It takes a long time for cases to filter through because presumption of guilt is something that has to be proven and considered at the conclusion of trial,” he says.
This legal framework also explains why accused families frequently insist that the deaths were suicides while simultaneously denying allegations of dowry harassment. Defence narratives increasingly focus on claims of depression, emotional instability, work stress, or mental health struggles to weaken the prosecution’s attempt to establish a direct link between cruelty and death.
Yet, much of the truth in such cases ultimately depends on forensic evidence.
“What the prosecution has to show is the actual cause of death. Sometimes that is never known. Were there injuries, what caused them, when were they caused — all that can only come after autopsy,” Singh says.
“In Delhi, we cleaned up the system on how to conduct autopsies, but across the country it is abysmal how autopsies are conducted. The only way to establish whether it was murder is through autopsies and forensic evidence, and if there is no proper autopsy, we may never know the actual cause of death,” he adds.
Ultimately, the legal battle in such cases often turns not only on what happened inside a marriage, but on what investigators can successfully prove in court. For grieving families, the distinction between dowry death and abetment of suicide can determine whether the law presumes accountability — or whether proving cruelty becomes an extraordinarily difficult task after a life has already been lost.
– Ends
Published On:
May 22, 2026 12:57 IST
