had assured to bring back Pramila at about 10AM. She has deposed that when Pramila did not return at 10:00 AM, she had asked her son Deepak to call his mother-in-law (PW-1) and on enquiry PW1 had questioned them as to why they had sent Pramila with her husband i.e. appellant. She is said to 14have 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