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 foregoing 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."

Headnote

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25, 26, 27 & 161 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 161 & 162 – Approver/Accomplice Evidence – Use of Previous Statement for Contradiction - The Supreme Court held that a non-confessional statement of an accused recorded by an Investigating Officer during investigation qualifies as a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C - If the accused subsequently turns into an approver and steps into the witness box as a prosecution witness, such a statement can be put to him for the purpose of contradiction under Section 162 Cr.P.C - A confessional statement made while in police custody remains strictly barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used for any purpose other than what is permissible under Section 27.

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Approver's Evidence – Object of Granting Pardon - The Supreme Court observed that the testimony of an approver must be evaluated with caution and requires due corroboration on material particulars - the High Court adopted an infirm approach by rejecting the approver's testimony on the sole ground that it contradicted his previous statement given to the police when he was an accused - The very object of granting pardon under the law is to elicit a "true and full disclosure" in aid of the prosecution, which inherently acknowledges that the individual had concealed the truth prior to the pardon - Rejection of post-pardon testimonies based mechanically on pre-pardon contradictions would effectively frustrate the statutory purpose of pardon in criminal trials. [Relied On: Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637; Paras 39, 64-67]

Constitution of India – Article 20(3) – Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 25 & 26 – Crime Scene Re-enactment – Right Against Self-Incrimination - The Supreme Court corrected the High Court's finding that compelling an accused to re-enact a crime scene per se violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution or constitutes an inadmissible confession under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act - The core test is whether the exercise compels the disclosure of incriminating information from the personal knowledge of the accused, or merely requires him to mimic a visual sequence or perform physical movements - A directed re-enactment staged by the Investigating Officer to analyze physical attributes does not amount to a personal testimony - While a re-enactment is merely "created evidence" and not substantive proof of the actual crime, expert assessments derived from it—such as gait analysis—are admissible as corroborative evidence of identity. [Paras 86-90]

Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65-B – Call Detail Records (CDRs) – Mode of Proof and Chain of Custody - The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of Call Detail Records (CDRs) filed by a Cyber Unit Police Officer who took printouts of data sent via email by telecom service providers and certified them under Section 65-B - Because the officer was merely a recipient and not the person having lawful control over the computer systems that generated the original records, he was incompetent to prove their contents - The prosecution's failure to examine the concerned Nodal Officers of the telecom companies or to produce the routing emails created a fatal gap in the chain of custody of the electronic data. [Paras 80, 81]

Expert Evidence – Forensic Science – Gait Analysis – Admissibility and Reliability Standards - The Supreme Court noted that while gait analysis is an evolving scientific technique useful for corroborating a suspect's identity and physical attributes, its validity relies entirely on a comparison between two independently admissible and reliable pieces of visual evidence - Where the original hard disk and DVR of a CCTV system were mishandled, delayed in extraction, and ultimately corrupted or destroyed by the investigating agency, a gait analysis report prepared by a private laboratory using an unverified backup copy cannot be safely relied upon. [Paras 91-93, 95-102]

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

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 519

Click here to read the judgment

Appearances:  For Appellant(s) Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Saini, Adv. Ms. Ratakshi Sarvaria, Adv. Mr. K.m. Abish, Adv. Ms. Shaesta Irshad, Adv. Mr. Ragib, Adv. M/s Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.F.Philip, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. Kartikeya Dang, Adv. Mr. Aadarsh Joshi, Adv. Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Adv. Ms. Muskan Anand, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. M.F. Philip, Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Adv. Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha, Adv Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv. Mr. Bharathimohan M., Adv Ms. V. Swetha, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.s, AOR Mr. Navneet Dugar, AOR Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR

Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. N. Sai Vinod, AOR Ms. Kanu Garg, Adv. Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv. Mr. Kavinesh Rn, Adv. Mr. Shubham Chopra, Adv. Mr. M Sathyanarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anindita MitraR aor, Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv Mr. Lakshman Raja T, Adv. Ms. Payoshi Roy, Adv Mr. Kaushal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Amit Pratap Shaunak, Adv. Mr. Achintya Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Priyanshu Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Chaturvedi, Adv Mr. M. Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. D. Narayana Kumar, Adv. Mr. C. Solomon, AOR Mr. Shri Singh, Adv Ms. Arshiya Ghosh, Ms. Rudrali Patil, Adv. Ms. Arunima M, Adv. Mr. Varuni Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. S. Parthasarathi, AOR Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shivani Vij, AOR Mr. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Siddhi Nagwekar, Adv. Mr. Yash Tayal, Adv.

Mr. Nizam Pasha, Adv. Mr. Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., AOR Mr. Anshika Das, Adv. Mr. Arif Ali, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Kaushik, Adv.