THATHAMSETTY SURESH v.

STATE OF A.P. (SLP (Crl.) No. 5440 of 2010)

NOVEMBER 22, 2010 [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

2010(13) SCR 890

The following Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

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:-

“1. A diffused contusion over the left temporal area of the head size  

about 5x4 cms. 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.

2. A diffused contusion over the posterior occipital area of the head.  

The size about 6 x 6 cms 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. 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 mid  sagital  

plain  of  the  parietal  area  of  the  head.  Size  about  4  x  3  cms 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.”

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  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 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 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:-

“PW1- who conducted investigation in this case has stated about the  

recovery of MO-2 under a cover of mediator report EX.P-8. He also stated  

that he seized MP-1 plastic tin of litres capacity, MO-2 iron pipe, MO-3  

glass  pieces  and  Mos.  4  to  13  burnt  cloth  pieces  at  the  scene.  The  

aforesaid material objects clinches the issue in proof 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.

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 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 U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1168 of 2005 decided on 28th  

October, 2010 that this 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 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.