7. It has been submitted by Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has committed an error in convicting the appellant both under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 304B I.P.C. It has been submitted that none of the ingredients necessary for such conviction are available with the prosecution. There are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the appellant has been held guilty. Alternatively, it has been submitted that in the worst scenario, at best, a case under Section 304B I.P.C. is made out against the appellant and the learned trial court has committed an error by applying “presumption” both under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 304B I.P.C. 8. Mr. Sardhu Mahato, learned APP has submitted that the death of Nasima Khatoon has been caused due to throttling at her matrimonial house and that there was a consistent demand of dowry and, therefore, conviction has rightly been done by the learned trial court both under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 304B I.P.C. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 10. The evidence of the prosecution consistently points to the fact that after one year of marriage the demand of dowry reared its head which continued till the deceased died on account of throttling. The demand was made of a Pulsar motorcycle as the appellant was not satisfied with the CD-Dawn motorcycle (though as per the informant P.W.7, it was a CD-Deluxe motorcycle) as well as a demand of Rs. 1 lakh in cash. Such repeated demands could not be fulfilled by the parents of the deceased Nasima Khatoon due to their poor financial condition. The deceased had also expressed an apprehension about she being done to death by her husband and in-laws for nonfulfillment of such demand. P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8,
