Dr Subbiah Murder | Trial Court Showed "Callous Attitude" In Failing To Appreciate Evidence, Disregarded Legal Proposition: Madras High Court

“We thought it fit to touch upon this aspect also to highlight the callous approach of the trial Court in not only failing to appreciate the evidences before it, but also disregarded the settled legal propositions for imposition of death penalty. Having said so, we do not intend to elaborate any further on this aspect,” the court observed.

Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, and directed them to be released unless their presence was otherwise required for the case.

Dr Subbiah was attacked with a sickle in 2013 while on his way back from Billroth Hospital in Chennai. He sustained multiple cut injuries on his neck, shoulder, right forearm, etc. Though he was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. The police later concluded that the motive for the murder was a civil dispute and arrested 9, including Subbiah's relatives. The trial court had awarded death sentence to 7 and life imprisonment to other two.

While the court agreed with the appellant's (accused's) contention that there was a likelihood of bias in granting pardon to one of the accused who later became a witness, the court added that a grant of pardon would not be vitiated only because of the apprehension of real likelihood of bias. The court, however, added that bias would certainly be a factor to be considered while appreciating the evidence of the approver.

The court further noted that the approver's (the accused who was pardoned) evidence itself had inherent improbabilities as there were substantial improvements made by him in the chief examination and the confession given to the police. The court added that in the absence of any strong evidence, it would have been highly unsafe to render guilt based on his evidence alone.

The court also observed that some of the witnesses were introduced by the prosecution as an afterthought. The court added that inherent improbability in their version, a non-explanation of their belated investigation would render their evidence worthless and believing such witnesses would be an insult to the criminal justice system.

“Besides the inherent improbability in the versions of PW4 and PW5, their belated examination, the non explanation or illogical explanation for their belated examination by the investigating officer renders their evidence worthless. In our view the conduct of the investigation in introducing such witnesses has to be condemned. It defies common sense and logic, to say the least. Believing such a witness would be an insult to the criminal justice system,” the court said.

Though the prosecution had brought in witnesses to support their claim that the appellants had conspired to murder Subbiah, the court observed that it was highly improbable for the appellants to discuss the murderous attack in public, to be overheard by a third party. Thus, the court was convinced that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution were of no avail and the statement of some witnesses was extracted only to suit the prosecution case.

The court thus concluded that the prosecution evidence, at best, led to a grave suspicion against some of the appellants but did not pass the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, noting that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the court set aside the conviction and the sentence.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 250

Case Title: State v P Ponnusamy

Case No: R.T. No.2 of 2021