Dr Subbiah murder: SC slams Madras high court, restores jail for all convicts

CHENNAI: Almost two years after Madras high court overturned a trial court’s death penalty on seven people and life-terms for two others in the sensational Dr Subbiah murder case, the Supreme Court called it a ‘grave error’ and restored the conviction of all the nine people.

However, since the Tamil Nadu govt did not press for the death penalty, the Supreme Court imposed life imprisonment on seven assailants and allowed two others – the aged parents of the prime suspects – to seek pardon from the Tamil Nadu governor within two months.

“A disputed piece of land, contesting claims over the same, prolonged litigation, unsuccessful attempts to favourably turn the pending litigations, a reputed doctor of Chennai, a land-grabbing mafia, few advocates, a few henchmen and a broad daylight murder in Chennai," said the bench of Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in its 96-page judgment.

It also quoted Tagore’s words: "The greed of gain has no time or limit to its capaciousness. Its one object is to produce and consume. It has pity neither for beautiful nature nor for living human beings. It is ruthlessly ready without a moment's hesitation to crush beauty and life.”

Dr Subbiah was hacked to death while entering his car near the Billroth Hospitals on Sept 14, 2013 over a land dispute in Kanyakumari. The murder, which shook the state, was caught on CCTV in the vicinity. In 2021, a trial court, finding all the nine guilty, imposed the death penalty on seven, including prime suspect-brothers Basil and Boris. Their parents – Ponnuswamy and Mary Pushpam – were awarded life imprisonment.

However, in June 2024, Madras high court set aside the conviction entirely and acquitted all, faulting the trial court saying grounds it adopted a “callous approach by ignoring settled principles of law”. It also pointed to “serious lapses” in the investigation.

Slamming the high court’s decision, the Supreme Court pointed out that 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 eyewitnesses. We are a little taken back with the sweeping nature of the remarks made in the impugned judgment,” said the bench.

“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,” it added.

As to the punishment part, the Supreme Court said: “The State has already made a statement to the effect that capital punishment is not pressed for in the present matter. Thus, all the respondents/convicts are hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fines imposed by the trial court, for the offences mentioned above.”

In the case of the aged parents, Ponnuswami and Mary Pushpam, the judges said: "In the present case, A1 (Ponnuswami) and A2 (Mary Pushpam) played a very limited role and acted largely in accordance with the directions of A3 (Basil) and A4 (Boris). 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.”

Considering the mitigating circumstances, the court said the two could apply for a gubernatorial pardon: "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 Governor 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.”

Making it clear that their observations on the aged parents were not intended to condone their actions but made for the limited purpose of appreciating the human factors underlying their conduct, the bench said: “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."