(1.) The appellant has been convicted for the offence of having murdered his daughter Seema. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. As per the prosecution, the motive for the crime was the wayward act of Seema in abandoning her husband and living in adultery with one Sriniwas, who happened to be the son of the maternal aunt of the appellant i.e. the relationship between Sriniwas and Seema was that of an uncle and cousin niece. Needless to state, the two were within prohibited relationship as per Hindu Law, of course, in North India, to which part of the country the parties belong, such a relationship is treated as incestuous. It attracts a social stigma and many a North Indians believe that such families have to be looked down upon. Obviously, the appellant felt humiliated and to avenge the family honour, murdered his own daughter, so alleges the prosecution.
(2.) It is apparent that our job is to return a verdict whether the prosecution has proved as afore-noted. The learned Trial Judge has returned a verdict that the prosecution has proved its case. In sustaining the conviction of the appellant, though not in very clear language, but it appears that the learned Trial Judge has relied upon the statement made by the appellant to the learned SDM wherein he admitted his guilt and further to the fact that after he was arrested, the appellant got recovered an electric wire Ex.P-1 which was the ligature material used to strangulate Seema to death. The two star witnesses of the prosecution had turned hostile. They are Dhillo Devi PW-4, the mother of the appellant and Khem Chand PW-6, the elder brother of the appellant.
(3.) That Seema was found dead in the house of the appellant on 15.5.2006 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that vide DD No. 21A dated 30.4.2006 the appellant had lodged a report with the police that his daughter Seema was missing. As deposed to by Seema PW-2 (not the deceased but her cousin aunt) and Sriniwas PW-3 (again not Sriniwas the person with whom deceased Seema had run away) they chanced to see Seema i.e. the deceased, at around 10:00- 11:00 AM on 14.6.2006 and since they knew that she was missing from her house they talked to her and left her in the house of her grandmother Dhillo Devi where appellant came and started talking to Seema when they left.