Supreme Court restores convictions in Dr. Subbiah murder case, sentences nine to life imprisonment

The Supreme Court on Tuesday restored the trial court’s findings in the 2013 murder case of Chennai-based neurosurgeon Dr. S Subbiah, who was hacked to death outside Billroth Hospital following a long-running property dispute [State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Ponnusamy & Ors].In a judgment passed today, a Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma held that the Madras High Court committed a “grave error” in reversing the trial court’s findings and acquitting the accused.Taking note of the State’s submission that it was not pressing for the death penalty, the Court sentenced nine persons to life imprisonment.“In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in reversing the view of the trial court. Even without regard to the breach of principles governing exercise of appellate powers, the impugned judgment is unsustainable on account of erroneous appreciation of evidence and for the reasons mentioned above. We find that the findings of the trial court are legally sustainable and stand restored,” the judgment stated..The Court allowed appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the Madras High Court’s June 2024 verdict acquitting all accused in the case.Among those convicted were two brothers alleged to be the conspirators behind the murder and their elderly father and mother, Ponnuswamy and Mary Pushpam.The Court carved out limited relief for the two elderly convicts by permitting them to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution before the Governor of Tamil Nadu.The Bench noted that their actions appeared to stem from a “misplaced sense of parental obligation and emotional attachment” towards their children."We would like to make it clear that these observations are not intended to condone their actions, but are made only for the limited purpose of appreciating the human factors underlying their conduct," the Court added..The case arose out of a long-running dispute concerning a two-acre property in the Kanyakumari district between Dr. S Subbiah and the family of Ponnuswamy. As per the prosecution's case, Dr. Subbiah had initiated multiple criminal proceedings against the accused family over alleged trespass and encroachment on the land.The prosecution alleged that Ponnuswamy, his wife Mary Pushpam, their sons Basil and Boris and other accused persons conspired to eliminate Dr. Subbiah in order to gain control of the disputed property. Hired assailants were allegedly brought to Chennai to execute the attack.On September 14, 2013, Dr. Subbiah was hacked with sickles outside Billroth Hospital in Chennai after leaving work. He later succumbed to his injuries on September 23.A trial court later convicted all the accused and sentenced seven persons to death, while awarding life imprisonment to two others.However, the Madras High Court later acquitted all the accused after finding gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.Aggrieved by the acquittal, the Tamil Nadu government approached the Supreme Court..The top court held that the High Court wrongly acquitted the accused by misappreciating evidence and ignoring the overall chain of circumstances proving the conspiracy behind the murder.The Court opened the judgment with a quote from Rabindranath Tagore on greed and human destruction. It described the case as a classic illustration of how greed over property can push people beyond all limits of sound human behaviour.The Court, however, treated the role of the elderly parents differently, observing that parents often fail to question or resist the actions of their children out of affection and emotional dependence.“In the present case, A1 and A2 (parents) played a very limited role and acted largely in accordance with the directions of A3 and A4 (sons). They joined the conspiracy at the instance of A3, and the money from the account of A1 was utilized for the same. It must also be borne in mind that A2 is a woman, and both A1 and A2 are in the advanced years of their lives. We would like to make it clear that these observations are not intended to condone their actions, but are made only for the limited purpose of appreciating the human factors underlying their conduct,” the Court saidHence, the Court granted Ponnuswamy and Mary Pushpam eight weeks to file pardon petitions under Article 161 of the Constitution and directed that they shall not be arrested till such petitions are decided.All other accused persons were directed to surrender before the trial court within two weeks..The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra and advocates Kartik Seth, Shilpa Saini, Ratakshi Sarvaria, K.M. Abish, Shaesta Irshad, Ragib, M.F. Philip, Purnima Krishna, Kartikeya Dang, Aadarsh Joshi, Karamveer Singh Yadav, Togin M. Babichen, Muskan Anand and Chambers Of Kartik Seth.The respondents were represented by Senior Advocates R Basant, M Sathyanarayanan and Jayanth Muth Raj, and advocates MF Philip, Purnima Krishna, Karamveer Singh Yadav, Togin M Babichen, Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Siddhartha, S Prabu Ramasubramanian, Bharathimohan M, V Swetha, Vairawan AS, Navneet Dugar, Prashant Padmanabhan, N Sai Vinod, Kanu Garg, Raunak Arora, Kavinesh Rn, Shubham Chopra, Anindita Mitra, Vishal Sinha, Lakshman Raja T, Payoshi Roy, Kaushal Kishore, Amit Pratap Shaunak, Achintya Tiwari, Priyanshu Maheshwari, Shivangi Chaturvedi, M Srinivasan, D Narayana Kumar, C Solomon, Shri Singh, Arshiya Ghose, Rudrali Patil, Arunima M, Varuni Aggarwal, S Parthasarathi, Shivani Vij, Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Siddhi Nagwekar, Yash Tayal, Nizam Pasha, Lzafeer Ahmad B F, Anshika Das, Arif Ali and Sidharth Kaushik..[Read Judgment]