“Papa, no!”: Auckland father on trial for killing five-year-old daughter

A High Court trial in Auckland has heard how a father allegedly killed his five-year-old daughter after becoming convinced he had passed on herpes to her, a belief prosecutors say was entirely unfounded, senior journalist Craig Kapitan from The New Zealand Herald has reported .

He is charged with the murder of Tulsi Amola in January 2025.

Mukesh Prashad, 38, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity over the death of his daughter, Tulsi Amola. The Crown alleges he smothered her in January last year inside a parked vehicle, after taking her from a friend’s home. The trial is ongoing.

Opening the case, prosecutors outlined a sequence of events they say shows intent and planning. Crown prosecutor Aminiasi Kefu said the first part of the trial will focus solely on whether it can be proven he killed his daughter and if he had murderous intent. He said he would rely heavily on the defendant’s own account to establish what happened.

“He told police this was his plan and he did it intentionally,” Kefu said during his opening address, as reported by The New Zealand Herald.

“He was fully aware of what he was doing and he carried it out," Herald quoted.

Final moments in the car

The court heard that in the moments before her death, Tulsi repeatedly resisted her father’s instructions to move from back to the front seat in the vehicle.

“Papa, no!”

“Papa, no!”

“Papa, no!”

Those were her final words, the court was told, according to the Herald report.

Prashad later told police that in an empty carpark he said to his daughter, “Today we are both going to die,” before smothering her with a pillow.

He has said his actions were driven by a belief that he had infected her with herpes and that he was attempting to spare her future suffering.

Belief in infection and alleged motive

Prashad had recently returned to his Takanini home in South Auckland to spend Christmas with his wife and daughter, after previously moving to Melbourne for work.

Prosecutors allege he contracted herpes while in Australia and later became fixated on the idea that his daughter had also been infected.

On Christmas Day, the family visited Maraetai Beach, where the child was bitten by insects. Prashad took her to a doctor suggesting she may have herpes, but did not disclose his own diagnosis.

The GP concluded the marks were insect bites that had become infected from scratching. The Crown says Prashad was unconvinced.

An autopsy later confirmed the child did not have herpes.

Planning and the killing

According to the Crown case, Prashad considered multiple methods before deciding on suffocation, which he described as “the lesser of the evils”.

He told police he had considered overdosing the child on medication such as Pamol, but ultimately proceeded with the plan on January 5 last year, The New Zealand Herald has report has mentioned.

He left home around 8pm to collect Tulsi, hiding a pillow so his wife would not see it, the court was told. He then drove to a quiet industrial area where he had previously worked and killed her, he said .

After the killing, he reportedly attempted to take his own life by walking into an estuary and striking his head with rocks. He survived.

“He obviously failed,” the prosecutor said, as quoted by Herald. 

Police station admission and arrest

Later that night, Prashad drove to Manukau Police Station, parked outside after midnight, and called emergency services.

“Hi there,” he said on the call. “Actually, I’ve killed my daughter and her body’s in the boot.”

Police found him in the vehicle with visible injuries and mud on his body. He was taken to hospital before being interviewed by detectives at around 6am.

Investigators later reviewed his internet history, which included searches relating to herpes, sleeping pills, Pamol, and the police contact number, The New Zealand Herald has reported .

Defence case and trial focus

Defence lawyer Sharyn Green told the jury the fact Prashad killed his daughter would not be disputed. The central issue, she said, is whether he was legally insane at the time, The New Zealand Herald has report has mentioned. 

The defence will argue he was suffering from a “disease of the mind” that prevented him from understanding his actions were wrong. A psychiatrist who examined Prashad three months after the incident is expected to be called as the sole defence witness.

The Crown may present its own psychiatric expert in rebuttal, with the jury ultimately tasked with determining whether the insanity threshold has been met.

The trial, before Justice Pheroze Jagose, continues, Herald has reported.