Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The accused/appellant herein, was alleged to have committed the murder of his daughter, by name, Mounika, on 06.05.2009 at 4.30 p.m. The complaint in this behalf was submitted by PW.1, the wife of the accused, alleging that the accused used to harass her for providing money to consume toddy, and if his demand is not acceded to, he used to beat her. She further stated that the accused used to harass their two daughters, by name, G.Lakshmi (PW.2), and Mounik, the deceased. One day prior to the incident, the accused is said to have threatened PW.1 with knife, while demanding money. On 06.05.2009, PW.1 is said to have gone to near by the place, to attend the marriage of their relation, and when she returned, PW.2 went for coolie work, and their son was not present in the house, and she found that the deceased hung by clutch wire, in the house. She alleged that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused. She gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to the Sub Inspector of Police (PW.9), Jaipur, and a case was registered as Crime No.47 of 2009, by citing Section 174 Cr.P.C. The scene of offence, panchanama was conducted, inquest was caused, and postmortem was done. On the basis of investigation conducted by him, the Investigating Officer, PW.10 filed the charge sheet. The case was committed to the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, and numbered as S.C. No.344 of 2009. On denial of the charge by the accused, the trial Court took up the case, for trial. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 11 were examined and Exs. P1 to P11 were filed. MO.1 i.e., clutch wire was also taken on record. Through its judgment dated 25.09.2009, the trial Court found the accused guilty, and imposed sentence of imprisonment for life, and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Hence, this appeal. Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the accused submits that there is no direct evidence in the case, and the circumstantial evidence is too weak to hold the accused guilty of the offence. He contends that PWs.1 and 2 have at the most, narrated their grievance, against the accused, and their suspicion cannot lead to the conviction of the accused. Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the accused submits that there is no direct evidence in the case, and the circumstantial evidence is too weak to hold the accused guilty of the offence. He contends that PWs.1 and 2 have at the most, narrated their grievance, against the accused, and their suspicion cannot lead to the conviction of the accused. Learned counsel further submits that PW.3, who is said to have noticed the deceased, at the earliest, was declared hostile, and if that is excluded, nothing remains on record, to enable the Court, to hold the accused guilty. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the circumstantial evidence in the form of a deposition of PWs.1 and 2, and the manner in which, the deceased was put to death, clearly discloses that, it is only the accused, that is guilty of the offence. He submits that PW.2 the first daughter of the accused, and PW.7 categorically stated that the accused used to harass even his daughter for money to purchase toddy, and that on one occasion, PW.2 had made an attempt to commit suicide, by jumping into a well, and this aspect was not even contradicted by the accused in the cross examination of PW.2. He submits that, being the father of the deceased child, the accused did not even submit a complaint, though he was very much in the house, and his absence, or failure to report the incident, are the circumstances enough, to hold him guilty of the crime. It is rather unfortunate that a child of 11 years was murdered in a very gruesome manner. The death was caused by hanging, that too, to a clutch wire of a two wheeler. Normally, the deaths, through hanging take place, when it is in the case of suicide. It is in rare cases that the homicidal deaths are presented, as suicides by hanging the dead body. If there exists any doubt, as to whether, the death of a person found to be hanging, is suicidal, or homicidal, the benefit of doubt is given to the accused. That, however, would be possible, if only, the deceased is found to be capable of hanging himself or herself. In the present case, the deceased is a child of 11 years of age, and the object, with which, the hanging occurred, is a clutch wire. That, however, would be possible, if only, the deceased is found to be capable of hanging himself or herself. In the present case, the deceased is a child of 11 years of age, and the object, with which, the hanging occurred, is a clutch wire. A child of that age, cannot be expected to handle a clutch wire, which is fully tampered. It is only an experienced and elderly person, who can arrange for knots at both the ends, of one to tie it, and elevated position, and the other, in such a way that, it slips on pressure. The child of that age cannot be expected to undertake, such an exercise, even with a rope. The possibility of the child having been killed by someone in the process of committing any theft of the ornaments of her, or committing any offence upon her body, is totally excluded. Therefore, no third party can be suspected the committing of such a heinous crime, without there being any motive for that purpose. The Courts would hesitate to hold a person of committing murder of his child. It is only, when all other possibilities are eliminated that the thinking proceeds on that direction. Even for that purpose, the nature and the previous conduct of the individual, becomes relevant. It is only, when the person is proved to be having criminal tendency or propensity, that the suspicion becomes strong. PW.1, the wife of the accused categorically stated both in Ex.P1, and in her chief examination that, the accused was addicted to drinks, and used to harass, not only her, but also the children, for money. She has also stated that one day before the incident, the accused chased her with a knife to extract money from her. Assuming that there were differences between the spouses, one cannot expect a daughter to make the allegations of the same magnitude. PW.2, the elder daughter of the accused, and PW.1 was doing coolie work, obviously because, the accused was so irresponsible, and drunkard that, he neglected to maintain his minor children also. Without stopping at that, he used harass them for money. Though this may appear to be some what strange, the record discloses that, it is harsh reality. PW.2, the elder daughter of the accused, and PW.1 was doing coolie work, obviously because, the accused was so irresponsible, and drunkard that, he neglected to maintain his minor children also. Without stopping at that, he used harass them for money. Though this may appear to be some what strange, the record discloses that, it is harsh reality. PW.2 stated that unable to bear the harassment meted out to her by the accused, at one point of time, she made an attempt to commit suicide by jumping into a well, and that it is the neighbours, that have rescued her. No suggestion was made to PW.2 to contradict this. In other words, the accused acknowledged the allegation made against him by none other than, his elder daughter, who is just a minor. This witness also stated that apart from PW.1, and herself, the accused used to demand money from the deceased also. Some money appears to be with PWs.1, 2 and the deceased, as they earned wages by doing coolie work. The accused was feeling, as though, all the three are there, under obligation to do work, and supply money to him, for purchasing the toddy, and other intoxicants. The circumstantial evidence on record, virtually left no alternative for the trial Court, except to hold the accused as guilty of committing the offence of murder of the minor child. We too have scanned through the entire record, and find that the needle of suspicion stops at the accused and his conduct of not only being addicted to drinks, but also, failing to take any steps, even after noticing the death of his daughter, fortify the same. We do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.