have received information to visit Civil Hospital, accordingly, they all went to Civil Hospital and saw the dead body of Pramila. 17. The testimony of PW3 corroborates with the testimony of PW2 on the aspect of the appellant visiting the house of deceased Pramila on the date of incident and taking her with him on the pretext, that his mother i.e. grandmother of Pramila was not keeping well and that she was desirous to see Pramila. 18. After considering the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 it is clear that appellant with the motive of killing his daughter had visited her matrimonial home along with PW2 and has taken her in an auto rickshaw on the pretext of visiting his mother and had strangulated her. The appellant is said to have asked PW2 to stop the auto near Savkar hospital and asked him to search for the watchman. By the time PW2 was back, the appellant was strangulating Pramila by means of a rope or string. The chain of events establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and there are no other circumstances to disbelieve the theory of the prosecution. 19. The case of the prosecution is further fortified by the testimony of PW6/Sri. Anand Vilas Pawar who performed the autopsy of Pramila. The testimony of PW6 is that death had occurred due to asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation via ligature mark and same is antemortem and 15