Dr Subbiah murder case | 'Greed beyond limits': Supreme Court restores life sentence to 7 convicts, allows 2 to seek pardon

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday restored the trial court's judgment convicting nine persons in the 2013 case of murder of Dr Subbiah, a reputed doctor of Chennai, terming it a stark reminder of how human greed can drive individuals to transgress every boundary of decency, even to the point of extinguishing lives.

A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government represented by senior advocate Sidharth Luthra and set aside the Madras High Court's judgment of June 14, 2024, which acquitted the accused of all charges.

The court found that the present case is a classic illustration of how humans tend to surpass all limits of sound human behaviour and even go to the extent of crushing human lives in pursuit of their greed.

Justice Sharma for the bench noted the case involved a disputed piece of land, contesting claims over it, prolonged litigation, unsuccessful attempts to favourably turn the pending litigations, a reputed doctor of Chennai, a land-grabbing mafia, few advocates, few henchmen and a broad daylight murder in Chennai.

The trial court convicted all the accused of murder and sentenced seven of them to death penalty and two persons to life imprisonment. The Madras High Court reversed this decision on grounds that the trial court adopted a callous approach by ignoring settled principles of law, and the serious lapses in the investigation.

Having examined the matter, the bench said, “The high court 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."

The court held that the findings of the trial court were legally sustainable and stood restored.

In its 96-page judgment, the court found the high court introduced numerous fictional probabilities in the sequence of events, without being supported by the record and cross-examination of the concerned witnesses.

On conspiracy, for instance, the high court proceeded to lay down general statements of law to the effect that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and cannot be heard by third persons.

“It went to the extent of calling it an ‘insult to the criminal justice system’ if it is believed that the conspiracy was discussed in the presence of eye witnesses. We are a little taken back with the sweeping nature of remarks made in the impugned judgment,” the bench said.

The court noted the prosecution presented extensive oral and documentary evidence proving a prolonged land dispute between the parties.

“There is ample evidence on record to show the motive of the accused persons and it is trite law that motive assumes significance in a case based on substantive evidence,” the bench said.

The court sentenced all persons to life imprisonment, except accused Ponnuswamy and Mary Pushpan.

The bench considered the advanced age of these two accused persons and their limited role in the conspiracy.

"We deem it appropriate to facilitate the right of A1 and A2 to seek pardon by permitting them to file appropriate petitions before His Excellency, the Governor of Tamil Nadu," the bench said as the state did not press for capital punishment.

In 2013, Dr Subbiah was attacked with a sickle while he was on his way back from Billroth hospital in Chennai. He sustained multiple cut injuries. The police concluded that the motive was a property dispute between A1's family and the deceased, and arrested nine persons.

For A1 and A2, the bench said 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).

“Parents love their children irrespective of their age and continue to support them even when no one else does. In their advanced years, they fail to question or resist their actions out of affection and emotional dependence, believing it to be their duty to protect and support them under all circumstances. It is in this background that the role of A1 and A2 is required to be appreciated,” the bench said.