Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
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:- "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.
8. We have recently held in the case of satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly & another Vs. State of UP., Criminal Appeal THATHAMSETTY SURESH v. STATE OF A.P. 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. R.P. SLP adjourned. c