Thathamsetty Suresh vs State Of A.P

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.