Presumption Under Section 113-B Unrebutted — (2025) INSC 1435
The prosecution established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry demands 'soon before death'.
State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg — (2025) INSC 1435Core Argument
The prosecution established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry demands 'soon before death'. Under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the presumption of dowry death arises, and the defence led no evidence to rebut it.
Key Precedents
- Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972 INSC 134) — Established that minor discrepancies or contradictions in witness statements do not warrant discarding the entire prosecution evidence unless they affect the substratum of the case.
- Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 8 SCC 633 — Held that the phrase 'soon before death' in Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 requires that the cruelty or harassment should have a proximate connection with the death, but does not require a fixed time gap; each case depends on its facts.
Premium Argument
Subscribe to access the full argument framework with precedent mapping and submission structure.
Subscribe to AccessAlready a subscriber? Sign inBENCH QUESTION
What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?
OPPOSITION COUNTER
The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...
Unlock the Argument Simulator
4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.
Available on Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans only.
Upgrade to Annual PlanDisclaimer: This argument framework is published by Agarawal Associates for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Adapt all submissions to the specific facts of your matter. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in