Disposed¶58

Thathamsetty Suresh v. State of A.P.

Supreme Court22 Nov 20102010 INSC 801 · [2010] 13 S.C.R. 8902010 INSC 801

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sentence enhancement notice; death sentence; life imprisonment; murder of wife; circumstantial evidence conviction; brutal killing; ante-mortem injuries; post mortem PW-8; crimes against women harsh punishment; Penal Code 1860 s. 302; Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly [2010] 12 SCR 1137; Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab; SLP (Crl.) 5440 of 2010; [2010] 13 (Addl.) SCR 890; Andhra Pradesh High Court Crl. A. 1515 of 2005.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to the petitioner why his sentence should not be enhanced from life sentence to death sentence; SLP adjourned. ¶58

Thathamsetty Suresh versus State of A.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (2010)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Notice issued to the petitioner why his sentence should not be enhanced from life sentence to death sentence; SLP adjourned.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's sentence of life imprisonment should be enhanced to death sentence. +1 more

¶55

Court's answer

PW-8, the doctor who conducted the post mortem, stated in unequivocal terms that the ante mortem injuries noted on the body of the deceased constitute the cause of death; the pouring of kerosene or setting her on fire was only a subsequent event.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

As PW-4 found the deceased in a groaning condition on account of her injuries 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.

¶42

Key takeaways

The facts prima facie reveal that the deceased was killed in a barbaric and brutal manner, having been battered repeatedly by a blunt weapon and then set on fire, and the appellant was said to have been alone with her at that time.ratio¶46
Ordinarily in such cases there is only circumstantial evidence, but that does not mean that a person cannot be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence.ratio¶49
This Court is going to take a serious view in the matters of crimes against women and give harsh punishment.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Supreme Court of India (Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.), SLP (Crl.) No. 5440 of 2010, Thathamsetty Suresh v. State of A.P., decided 22 November 2010: Petitioner, convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment (High Court judgment & order dated 04.12.2007 in Crl. A. No. 1515 of 2005), sought relief by SLP. Post-mortem ante-mortem head injuries (PW-8) showed death was caused by repeated battering with a blunt weapon, the pouring of kerosene and burning being only a subsequent event; PW-4 found the deceased groaning with the appellant alone present, leading to the conclusion that the appellant caused the death. Counsel contended there was only circumstantial evidence; the Court held that this does not mean a person cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence. Taking a serious view of crimes against women and citing its recent decision in Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly v. State of UP ([2010] 12 SCR 1137, relied on) and its like course in Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court issued notice to the petitioner why his life sentence should not be enhanced to death sentence, and adjourned the SLP.

¶1

¶2

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

THATHAMSETTY SURESH

STATE OF A.P.

(SLP (Crl.) No. 5440 of 2010)

¶7

¶8

NOVEMBER 22, 2010

¶9

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

¶10

PENAL CODE, 1860:

¶11

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 at that time - In such cases, ordinarily, there is only 0 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.

¶12

¶13

Satya Narayan Tiwari@ Jolly & Anr. vs. State of UP. [201 O] 12 SCR 1137 - relied on. '

¶14

Case Law Reference:

¶15

¶16

[2010] 12 SCR 1137 relied on para 8 [201 O] 12 SCR relied on para 9

¶17

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRL.) Appeal No. 5440 of 2010. G

¶18

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.

¶19

¶20

890

¶21

THATHAMSETIY SURESH v. STATE OF A.P. 891

¶22

Anjani Aiyagari for the Petitioner.

¶23

¶24

D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh Allanki for the Respondent.

¶25

The following Order of the Court was deiivered

¶26

ORDER

¶27

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

In his case the petitioner has been accused of murdering his wife. The injuries shown by the Doctor are as follows:-

¶30

"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 antemortem.

¶31

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. Bleed with clot showing with crush in nature. Bleed with clot showing all types inflammatory signs. It is only antemortem.

¶32

A diffused contusion over the posterior frontal and 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."

¶33

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

892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (AODL.) S.C.R.

¶41

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

¶42

B alone was present by her side, the inescapable conclusion is that the death was caused by the appellant and by none else.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

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 MP1 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."

¶46

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.

¶47

¶48

It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant there is only circumstantial evidence against the appellant accused.

¶49

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.

¶50

We have recently held in the case of satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly & another Vs. State of UP., Criminal Appeal

¶51

¶52

THATHAMSETTY SURESH v. STATE OF A.P. 893

¶53

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.

¶54

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.

¶55

In this petition we also notice to the petitioner why his sentence should not be enhanced from life sentence to death sentence.

¶56

¶57

R.P.

¶58

SLP adjourned.

Thathamsetty Suresh v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thathamsetty Suresh v. State of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpa Vanti versus Union of India & Ors.

Satya Narayana Tiwari and Anr. versus State of U.P.

Manoj Yadav versus Pushpa @ Kiran Yadav

Rajbir @ Raju and Anr. versus State of Haryana

Board of Wakf, West Bengal versus Anis Fatma Begum and Anr.