THATHAMSETTY SURESH versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 890 · Decided: 22-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 890 
THATHAMSETTY SURESH 
v. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(SLP (Crl.) No. 5440 of 2010) 
NOVEMBER 22, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU 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 
F 
G 
H 
Satya Narayan Tiwari@ Jolly & Anr. vs. State of UP. 
[201 O] 12 SCR 1137 - relied on. 
' 
Case Law Reference: 
[2010] 12 SCR 1137 
relied on 
[201 O] 12 SCR 
relied on 
para 8 
para 9 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRL.) 
Appeal No. 5440 of 2010. 
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. 
890 
THATHAMSETIY SURESH v. STATE OF A.P. 
891 
Anjani Aiyagari for the Petitioner. 
D. Mahesh Babu, Ramesh Allanki for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was deiivered 
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 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. 
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. 
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 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." 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
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. 
D 
E 
F 
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 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 
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 
G evidence but that does not mean that a person cannot be 
convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 
H 
8. We have recently held in the case of satya Narayan 
Tiwari @ Jolly & another Vs. State of UP., Criminal A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.