(Understanding it with the Twisha Sharma Case)
Author: Vedashree B. Rajput
Government Law College, Mumbai
To the Point
When a young married woman dies under suspicious circumstances, public conversation tends to jump straight to one assumption: dowry harassment must’ve been involved, so the husband and his family must be guilty. That reaction makes sense emotionally. But legally, it’s wrong.
Indian law does shift the burden of proof onto the accused in dowry death cases, but not automaticallyand also not the moment someone files a complaint. The prosecution first has to independently prove three specific things: that the death wasn’t natural, that it happened within seven years of marriage, and that the woman faced dowry-related cruelty or harassment “soon before” her death. Only when all three of these are proven, the legal presumption of guilt actually comes into play.
This article looks at exactly how that works. It comes from Section 80 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. There’s a real gap between how people assume this law works and how courts have actually applied it and that gap is worth understanding. The ongoing investigation into the death of Twisha Sharma, a former Miss PuneTitleholder, is used here as a real-world example of how this plays out.
Use of Legal Jargon
Presumption of innocence: The default rule in criminal law. Every accused person is innocent until the prosecution proves their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Burden of proof: The burden to prove a disputed fact in court. Normally, this stays with the prosecution throughout the trial.
Reverse onus / Shifting burden: A statutory exception. Once certain basic facts are proven, the burden of proof shifts to the accused and now they have to prove how they are not guilty.
Foundational facts: the basic groundwork facts the prosecution has to prove on their own first. Once those are nailed down, the presumption is triggered.
Mandatory presumption: Created when a law uses the word “shall.” Once the foundational facts are proven, the court has no choice but to apply the presumption.
Rebuttable presumption: A presumption the accused is allowed to challenge and overturn by presenting evidence against it. It doesn’t mean automatic guilt.
Preponderance of probability: An easier standard than ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ The accused just has to show it’s probably wrong and not prove it for certain.
“Soon before death”: A flexible time standard, not a fixed number of days. Courts look at how close in time and how continuous the harassment was, rather than just counting days backward on a calendar.
Sub judice: A matter that’s currently under investigation or before a court. Pre-judging such matters is discouraged.
The Proof
How does the law actually work?
Section 80 of the BNS, 2023 defines what a “dowry death” is. It covers a woman’s death by burns, bodily injury, or any unnatural circumstances, within seven years of marriage, where cruelty or harassment connected to a dowry demand is shown. This section just defines things — it tells a court what to look for. That’s all.
Section 118 of the BSA, 2023; the successor to Section 113B of the old Evidence Act, is where the real shift happens. Once it’s shown that the woman died within seven years of marriage and was subjected to dowry-related cruelty or harassment “soon before” her death, the court
shall presume the accused caused the death. “Shall” makes this mandatory. The court has no choice once those basic facts are proven. From that point, it’s on the accused to show, on a balance of probability, that they didn’t cause the death or that the harassment never happened.
Think of it this way: Section 80 sets the conditions. Section 118 delivers the consequence. But the consequence only follows once the conditions are actually met with real evidence, not just allegations.
Where the Twisha Sharma case fits in?
Twisha Sharma, a former Miss Pune Titleholder, married Bhopal resident Samarth Singh in December 2025. She was found dead at her matrimonial home on 12 May 2026; hanging, according to police, just five months into the marriage. Her family alleged she had been harassed over dowry demands by her husband, a lawyer, and his mother, Giribala Singh, a former district judge. A woman, a judge who spent her career on the bench, applying the law, now stands accused under it and it is part of why this case drew the Supreme Court’s attention so quickly.
The Madhya Pradesh Police registered an FIR under Sections 80 and 85 of the BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The CBI then took over the case. Samarth Singh was arrested on 22 May 2026. Giribala Singh’s anticipatory bail was quashed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and she was arrested by the CBI on 28 May 2026. Both are now inJudicial Custodyat the Bhopal Central Jail.
The Supreme Court, noticing how intense the media coverage had become, told everyone involved to speak to investigators and not the press and also warned against public pre-judgement of a case that’s still being investigated.
And that’s exactly the point. As of now, no court has made a finding on the foundational facts. No judicial finding means no legal presumption. The “switch” hasn’t been flipped yet; not legally, anyway.
Abstract
This article looks at the legal presumption of guilt in Indian dowry death law, as it exists under the new criminal codes. Section 80 of the BNS, 2023 defines what a “dowry death” is, and Section 118 of the BSA, 2023 shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, but only once foundational facts are established.
The article argues that public and media coverage often mixes up mere allegations of dowry harassment with the actual legal trigger for this presumption, overlooking the specific, independent proof courts require before the burden shifts. Drawing on Supreme Court and High Court rulings, it highlights both the reasoning behind this law (domestic abuse rarely has witnesses) and the judicial safeguards courts have built to prevent its misuse.
The death of Twisha Sharma is used as a current, real-world example of how this plays out in practice. The article doesn’t take a position on how the investigation will turn out.
Case Laws
1. Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207
An important check on how broadly the presumption can be used. The Supreme Court warned that in dowry death cases, the deceased’s family often names the husband’s entire extended family — without specific evidence against each person.The Court ruled that this kind of broad, blanket accusation can’t support a conviction.The presumption under Section 118 BSA must be applied only where evidence specifically links a named accused to the harassment. It’s not a blanket tool against an entire household.
2. Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1
The most important recent clarification. The Supreme Court held that “soon before death” should be read in terms of closeness and continuity and not as some rigid, fixed time window. A technicality shouldn’t defeat a genuine case. At the same time, the Court confirmed that even though the presumption under Section 118 is mandatory once the foundational facts are proven, it’s still something the accused can challenge. They just have to show that it’s more likely than not that they’re innocent; they don’t have to prove it beyond doubt.
3. Raja Ram Mandal v. State of Jharkhand (Jharkhand High Court, 2025)
The clearest recent example of “the switch doesn’t flip automatically.” The trial court had convicted the appellants under Section 304B IPC (now Section 80 BNS). The Jharkhand High Court overturned that conviction. Why? Because the trial court had applied the legal presumption without first clearly establishing that the woman had actually faced dowry-related cruelty soon before her death. The presumption can only follow proof of the foundational facts, it cannot replace that proof.
Conclusion
The dowry death presumption exists for a real reason. Domestic abuse inside a marriage almost never happens in front of witnesses.If the prosecution had to meet the usual criminal standard of proof in every single case,genuine abusers would walk free far too often. Section 118 of the BSA addresses this gap, but carefully, and conditionally.
Courts have consistently enforced that condition. In Kans Raj, they warned against blaming an entire family at once. In Satbir Singh, they demanded a clear, close connection between the harassment and the death. In Raja Ram Mandal, they overturned a conviction where that link was assumed instead of proven.
The gap this article has tried to point out is simple: the law is careful and conditional, but public conversation treats an FIR mentioning dowry as basically the same thing as a finding of guilt. It isn’t. Not even close.
The investigation into Twisha Sharma’s death will eventually come down to whether the CBI can prove the specific foundational facts with real evidence and not with media coverage or public opinion. Until those facts are established before a court, the legally accurate position is simple: the presumption hasn’t been triggered yet.
FAQs
Q1. Does mentioning dowry harassment in an FIR mean the accused is automatically presumed guilty?
No. An FIR records an allegation. The presumption under Section 118 BSA only applies once a court is satisfied through evidence that the woman died unnaturally within seven years of marriage and was subjected to dowry-related cruelty soon before her death. Filing a complaint doesn’t establish those facts.
Q2. Is there a fixed time limit for “soon before death”?
No. The Supreme Court in Satbir Singh clarified that this phrase is assessed on proximity and continuity of harassment, not a fixed number of days or months. It actually depends on the facts of every different case.
Q3. Has this provision been misused against extended family members?
Courts have flagged this risk. In Kans Raj, the Supreme Court specifically warned against treating every relative of the husband as equally liable without specific evidence, noting a pattern where families of the deceased implicate the entire household.
