Dr Subbiah Murder | Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC's Acquittals; Gives Life Sentence To 7 Convicts, Allows 2 To Seek Pardon

The Supreme Court today(May 19) restored the Trial Court's order convicting the accused persons in the infamous Dr. Subbiah murder case. It has sentenced all persons to life imprisonment, except A1(Ponnuswamy) and A2 (Mary Pushpan). The Court has considered the advanced age of these two accused persons and their limited role in the conspiracy stemming from their parental obligations to protect their children as mitigating circumstances.

Consequently, the Court allowed A1 & A2 to seek a pardon from the Tamil Nadu Governor within 8 weeks.

It may be recalled Dr Subbiah was attacked in 2013 with a sickle while he was on his way back from Billroth hospital in Chennai. He sustained multiple cut injuries on his head, neck, shoulders, etc. The police concluded that the motive was a property dispute between A1's family and the deceased. It arrested 9 persons, including A2(wife of A1), A3 and A4(children of A1&A2).

The Trial Court convicted all of murder and sentenced 7 of them to death sentences and 2 persons to life imprisonment. This was reversed by the Madras High Court on the grounds that the Trial Court adopted a callous approach by ignoring settled principles of law, and the serious lapses in the investigation.

A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the High Court's order is not sustainable in law as it failed to appreciate the evidence led by the prosecution. Therefore, in view of the reasons, it upheld the Trial Court's order.

"In view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the view that the High Court committed a grave error in reversing the view of the Trial Court, without regard to the breach of principles governing the exercise of powers, the impugned judgment is unsustainable on account of erroneous appreciation of evidence. On the reasons mentioned above, we find the findings of the trial Court are clearly sustainable and stand restored, and the convictions of the respondents are upheld."

On the sentencing aspect, it recorded the Tamil Nadu Government's stand that it is not pressing for a death sentence anymore. Therefore, it was awarded imprisonment for life to all accused persons, except A1 and A2.

"The State has already made a statement that capital punishment is not pressed for in the present matter. Thus, all present respondents are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with the fines imposed by the Trial Court. In case of default, the payment of fine shall also remain the same."

As for A1 and A2, the Court was of the view that their role was limited as they got embroiled in the conspiracy because of their love for their children. They had joined the conspiracy at the behest of A3 (Basil PM) and A4(Boris PM).

"We don't wish to conclude our judgment by merely recording the conviction. Though the seriousness of the offence can't be understated, we believe that this Court has a slightly larger role to play. Thus, we would like to make certain observations. Parents love their children irrespective of their age and continue to support them even when no one else does. In the advanced years, they fail to question or resist their actions out of affection and emotional dependence, believing it as their duty to protect and support them in all circumstances.

In this background, the role of A1 and A2 is required to be appreciated. A1 and A2, being the parents of A3 and A4, appear to have stemmed from a sense of parental obligation and emotional attachment towards securing the perceived welfare and future of their children, as parental instinct to protect and provide is one of the most powerful human impulses, which can at times cloud judgment and rational thinking."

The judgment authored by Justice Sharma further said: "In the present case, A1 and A2 played a very limited role and acted largely in accordance with the directions of A3 and A4. They joined the conspiracy at the instance of A3, and money from the account of A1 was utilised for the same. It must be borne in mind that A2 is a woman and A1 and A2 are in the advanced years of their life. We would like to make it clear that these observations are not intended to condone their actions but made for the limited purpose of appreciating the human factors underlying their conduct. "

It concluded that, considering the mitigating circumstances, the two accused persons can apply for a pardon: 

"It is in the backdrop of the constitutional principles, coupled with the peculiar mitigating circumstances, we deem it appropriate to facilitate the right of A1 and A2 to seek pardon by permitting them to file an appropriate application before his excellency the Governnor of Tamil Nadu. We also request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust can be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances mentioned above. Accordingly, we grant 8 weeks time from the date of this judgment to file appropriate petitions. Till such petitions are duly decided, A1 and A2 shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended. Except them, all other accused persons are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within 2 weeks."

Case Details:THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU v PONNUSAMY AND ORS|Crl.A. No. 2493-2502/2025