THATHAMSETTY SURESHversusSTATE OF A.P.

                  (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 890


A                   THATHAMSETTY SURESH
                                 v.
                         STATE OF A.P.
                   (SLP (Crl.) No. 5440 of 2010)
                      NOVEMBER 22, 2010
B
    [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

        PENAL CODE, 1860:

c        s. 302 - Accused convicted of murdering his wife and
    sentenced to life imprisonment - SLP filed by accused before
    Supreme Court - HELD: The facts of the case prima facie
    reveal that the deceased was killed in a barbaric and brutal
    manner - Accused said to have been alone with the victim
0   at that time - In such cases, ordinarily, there is only
    circumstantial evidence but that does not mean that a person
    cannot be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence
    - Notice to issue to accused-petitioner why his sentence be
    not enhanced to death sentence - Sentence/ sentencing -
    Enhancement of sentence.
E
         Satya Narayan Tiwari@ Jolly & Anr. vs. State of UP.
    [201 O] 12 SCR 1137 - relied on.                  '

                         Case Law Reference:
F       [2010] 12 SCR 1137       relied on            para 8

        [201 O] 12 SCR           relied on            para 9

        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRL.)
    Appeal No. 5440 of 2010.
G
        From the Judgment & Order dated 04.12.2007 of the High
    Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad at
    Hyderabad in Crl. A. No. 1515 of 2005.

H                               890
    THATHAMSETIY SURESH v. STATE OF A.P.                    891

    Anjani Aiyagari for the Petitioner.                             A

    D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh Allanki for the Respondent.

    The following Order of the Court was deiivered

                              ORDER                                 B

    1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

     2. In his case the petitioner has been accused of murdering
his wife. The injuries shown by the Doctor are as follows:-
                                                                    c
          "1. A diffused contusion over the left temporal area
    of the head size about 5x4 ems. A diffused elevated injury.
    Cut section shows all the types of inflammatory changes
    or vital reactions. Cause may be blunt. It is only ante-
    mortem.                                                         D
          2. A diffused contusion over the posterior occipital
    area of the head. The size about 6 x 6 ems crushing of
    the scalp with oozing of blood. Injury may be due to blunt.
    Cut section shows diffused haemotoma underneath the
    scalp at posterior occipital of scalp with crush in nature.     E
    Bleed with clot showing with crush in nature. Bleed with
    clot showing all types inflammatory signs. It is only ante-
    mortem.

           3. A diffused contusion over the posterior frontal and   F
     mid sagital plain of the parietal area of the head. Size
     about 4 x 3 ems surface elevated and diffused. The cause
     may be blunt. Cut section shows underneath the scalp a
     diffused haemotama at mid sagital plain of the mid parietal
     area of the skull. This is only ante-mortem."                  G
          PW-8, the doctor, who conducted post mortem, in
     uneguivocal terms said that the ante mortem injuries that
     were noted on the body of the deceased constitute the
     cause of the death. Therefore, it emerges that the
                                                                    H
    892     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (AODL.) S.C.R.


A         deceased died on accou nt of injuries mentioned in Ex.P.
          5 and pouring of kerosene or settling her on fire, was only
          a subsequent event. Once the record disclose that PW 4
          found that deceased in groaning condition, obviously on
          account of series injuries received by her and the appellant
B         alone was present by her side, the inescapable conclusion
          is that the death was caused by the appellant and by none
          else.

         3. The above injuries show that the head of the deceased
C   was battered repeatedly by a blunt weapon (probably a lathi)
    and then kerosene was poured on her and she was put on fire.

         4. PW-1 who conducted investigation in this case has
    stated as below:-

D               "PW1- who conducted investigation in this case has
          stated about the recovery of M0-2 under a cover of
          mediator report EX.P-8. He also stated that he seized MP-
          1 plastic tin of litres capacity, M0-2 iron pipe, M0-3 glass
          pieces and Mos. 4 to 13 burnt cloth pieces at the scene.
          The aforesaid material objects clinches the issue in proof
E
          of the offence and recovery."

         5. The above facts prima facie reveal that the deceased
    was killed in a barbaric and brutal manner. The appellants said
    to have been alone with her a that time.
F
         6. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant
    there is only circumstantial evidence against the appellant
    accused.

      7. In such cased ordinarily there is only circumstantial
G evidence but that does not mean that a person cannot be
  convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

        8. We have recently held in the case of satya Narayan
    Tiwari @ Jolly & another Vs. State of UP., Criminal Appeal
H
       THATHAMSETTY SURESH v. STATE OF A.P.                  893


No. 1168 of 2005 decided on 28th October, 2010 that this            A
Court is going to take a serious view in the matters of crimes
against women and give harsh punishment.

      9. This view was reiterated by us in another special leave
petition in the case of Sukhdev Singh & another Vs. State of
                                                                 8
Punjab and we issued notice to the petitioner as to why his
life sentence be not enhanced to death sentence.

    10. In this petition we also notice to the petitioner why his
sentence should not be enhanced from life sentence to death
sentence.                                                           c
R.P.                                            SLP adjourned.