Key Takeaways
- Mukesh Prashad, 38, is on trial in Auckland High Court for the murder of his five‑year‑old daughter, Tulsi Amola, in January 2025.
- The Crown alleges he smothered Tulsi with a pillow he had taken from the bedroom, then moved her body to the car boot and confessed to police.
- Prashad claimed he believed Tulsi had contracted herpes from him and would suffer lifelong pain and social isolation, motivating the killing as a “mercy” act.
- Medical examination after death found no evidence of herpes or any viral or sexual disease in Tulsi.
- The defence argues Prashad suffered from a mental disease at the time, seeking a legal excuse that he did not intend to kill his daughter.
- Tulsi’s mother testified about the couple’s arranged marriage, Prashad’s caregiving, his genital lesions, weight loss, and avoidance of physical intimacy after suspecting herpes.
- Financial strain and Prashad’s work in Australia were cited as stressors contributing to his mental state.
- The trial continues, with a psychiatrist slated to testify for the defence later in the proceedings.
Background and Charges
Mukesh Prashad, a 38‑year‑old father of two, appeared in the Auckland High Court on Tuesday to face a murder charge relating to the death of his five‑year‑old daughter, Tulsi Amola. The alleged offence occurred in January 2025, when Prashad reportedly smothered Tulsi with a pillow he had covertly taken from their bedroom. Crown prosecutor Aminiasi Kefu opened the case by outlining the prosecution’s version of events, emphasizing that Prashad had fabricated a story about visiting a friend to conceal his true intentions. The charge carries a mandatory life sentence if convicted, and the trial is being closely watched due to the disturbing nature of the alleged crime and the mental‑health defence being raised.
The Alleged Night of the Killing
According to the Crown, Prashad told his wife he would pick up Tulsi from a friend’s house, but before leaving he smuggled a pillow from their bedroom and concealed it from his wife. He then drove Tulsi to Highbrook in East Tāmaki, instructed her to move to the front seat, and told her, “today we are both going to die.” Using the pillow, he allegedly smothered her until she stopped breathing, while Tulsi repeatedly pleaded, “Papa no, Papa no, Papa no.” After her death, Prashad placed her body in the car boot, drove around for a period, attempted suicide unsuccessfully, and eventually went to the Manukau police station where he confessed, saying, “I killed my daughter, and her body’s in the boot.”
Motivation: Belief of Herpes Infection
Kefu told the jury that Prashad’s actions stemmed from a delusional belief that he had transmitted herpes simplex to Tulsi. He claimed that after a family beach trip on Christmas Day 2024, Tulsi developed infected bug bites, which led Prashad to think she had contracted the virus from him. He feared that Tulsi would grow up in chronic pain, face social stigma, and be isolated from peers and family. This perceived future suffering, the prosecution argued, drove Prashad to conclude that killing her was an act of mercy, despite the lack of any medical basis for his belief.
Medical Evidence Contradicts the Accusation
A post‑mortem examination conducted by a pathologist found no trace of herpes simplex or any other viral or sexual disease in Tulsi’s body. The Crown highlighted this forensic result to undermine Prashad’s justification, showing that his conviction of her infection was unfounded. The absence of infection evidence was presented as a key factor in demonstrating that the killing was not a response to a genuine medical threat but rather a product of a distorted mental state.
Defence Position: Mental Disease Excuse
Defence lawyer Sharyn Green acknowledged that Prashad killed his daughter but argued that, at the time, he was suffering from a disease of the mind that negated criminal intent. She urged the jury to keep an open mind, scrutinise all evidence, and avoid prejudices against mental‑health defences, which she noted are sometimes raised by those seeking to evade responsibility. Green indicated that the defence would call a psychiatrist later in the trial to testify about Prashad’s mental condition, but that witness had not yet been heard.
Witness Testimony: Tulsi’s Mother
The first Crown witness was Tulsi’s mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons. She described meeting Prashad through an arranged marriage and portrayed him as initially caring and attentive toward both her and Tulsi. She recounted a 2024 incident where a neighbour threatened a cousin staying at their home, prompting Prashad to return from Australia early and install security cameras. After returning to Australia, he called his wife roughly eight times a day to check on their safety. Over time, she noticed his dramatic weight loss, lesions on his genitals, and a marked decline in physical intimacy; Prashad told her he avoided contact to prevent her from catching the same condition.
Changes in Father‑Daughter Relationship
The mother also observed a shift in Prashad’s behaviour toward Tulsi. She said he stopped kissing her, holding her hand, or picking her up as he once did. She recalled the Christmas Day beach trip at Maraetai, after which she felt itchy and discovered blisters on Tulsi’s hand and scratches from her itching. Initially attributing the irritation to flea or insect bites, she took Tulsi to a doctor with Prashad; they were told the bites likely resulted from the beach outing and were given a topical cream. The mother’s testimony highlighted the family’s medical concerns and the growing distress that preceded the tragedy.
The Day of Tulsi’s Last Alive
Kefu guided the witness through the events of 5 January, Tulsi’s final day. The morning began with Prashad obtaining oats for Tulsi and doing some gardening. The family then visited a flea market for fresh vegetables, during which Tulsi asked to go to a friend’s house. Prashad and his wife assisted a cousin with groceries while Tulsi was taken to her friend’s home by her grandmother. Later, while speaking with her in‑laws on the phone, Prashad announced he was going to pick up Tulsi, claiming he had a gift to drop off afterward. He and Tulsi never returned home, prompting the mother to call and text repeatedly with no response.
Mother’s Search and Police Involvement
Concerned, Tulsi’s mother called Prashad’s friend, who said he was not present. She then contacted the police, and a recording of her frantic 111 call was played for the jury, in which she expressed worry that Prashad’s car had broken down. She, along with three others, drove along possible routes, checked the friend’s house, called police again, and went to the hospital to rule out an accident. Returning home, she told her mother they had located the pair to avoid causing further worry. Police later arrived at the residence, informed her that Prashad and Tulsi had been found, and confirmed Tulsi’s death. She accompanied officers to the police station, where her brother‑in‑law identified Tulsi’s body.
Financial Strain and Work in Australia
Under questioning from Green, the mother confirmed that financial difficulties had motivated Prashad to seek work in Australia. She said they struggled to pay the mortgage and household rates, and the primary aim of his overseas employment was to secure a better future and education for Tulsi, as well as to achieve financial stability. She added that Prashad was unhappy while abroad, which contributed to his stress and deteriorating mental state. These details were offered to contextualise the pressures that may have exacerbated any underlying psychiatric condition.
Medical History and Defence Exhibit
Green produced a record of a consultation Prashad had with an Australian doctor, noting that he had discussed lichen sclerosus and herpes simplex, mentioning that the lesions on his genitals could be cancerous. The mother testified that she never discussed herpes with her husband. This medical background was presented to illustrate Prashad’s health anxieties and to support the defence’s claim that his perceptions—and potentially his actions—were influenced by a mental disorder rather than pure criminal intent.
Trial Outlook
The trial remains ongoing, with the prosecution having presented its narrative and the defence preparing to call a psychiatric expert later in the proceedings. Jurors have been instructed to weigh the evidence carefully, consider the legitimacy of the mental‑health defence, and determine whether Prashad acted with intent or under a delusional belief that absolves him of moral culpability. The outcome will hinge on the balance between the factual circumstances of the killing and the interpretation of Prashad’s mental state at the time.