JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. —

“Hai maujazan ek kulzum-e-khoon kaash yahi ho Aataa hai abhi dekhiye kya kya mere aage” — Mirza Ghalib

1. This is yet another case of gruesome honour killing, this time by the accused-appellant of his own daughter.

2. Leave granted.

3. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

4. The prosecution case is that the appellant was very annoyed with his daughter, who had left her husband Raju and was living in an incestuous relationship with her uncle, Sriniwas. This infuriated the appellant as he thought this conduct of his daughter Seema had dishonoured his family, and hence he strangulated her with an electric wire. The trial court convicted the appellant and this judgment was upheld by the High Court. Hence this appeal.

5. This is a case of circumstantial evidence, but it is settled law that a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence provided the links in the chain of circumstances connects the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt vide Vijay Kumar Arora vs. State (NCT of Delhi),1 (2010) 2 SCC 353 (para 16.5), Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal,2 (2010) 2 SCC 583 (vide paragraphs 13 and 14), etc. In this