The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction of the 9 accused in the murder of Dr Subbiah, while noting that the trial court passed the judgment in a callous manner, without deliberating on the mitigating circumstances, evidence, and existing legal proposition.

In that context, the Bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Sunder Mohan observed that, "had the trial Court further analysed the decisions referred to by us commencing from Bachan Singh to Sundar @ Sundarrajan, by deliberating on the “mitigating circumstances”, possibly the sentence of death penalty would not have crossed its mind. The trial Court seems to have already made up its decisions to impose death penalty without such discussion and without a proper analysis, as held in Bachan Singh's case (supra) and all the subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court following the same. 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."

In 2013, Dr. Subbiah was attacked with a sickle while returning from Billroth Hospital in Chennai. He sustained multiple injuries to his neck, shoulder, and right forearm. Although he was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to his injuries. The police concluded that the motive for the murder was a civil dispute and arrested nine individuals, including Subbiah's relatives. The trial court sentenced seven of them to death and the other two to life imprisonment.

Allowing appeals filed by the accused, the High Court came to the following conclusions:

(a) Though the defence had established the reasonable likelihood of bias in the act of grant of pardon to PW12, it would not have the effect of eschewing his evidence. However, it would definitely have a bearing while appreciating his evidence. Therefore, it requires more circumspection and caution than that is usually required for an approver's evidence, while appreciating PW12's evidence. Unless PW12's evidence is corroborated in such a manner as to render his story believable, PW12's evidence would not be of any avail to the prosecution.

(b) The evidence of witnesses, who spoke about the conspiracy viz., PW4, PW5 and PW53 as stated above, is of no avail to the prosecution for the reasons stated above.

(c) PW2 and PW3, the eyewitnesses also are unreliable for the reasons stated above and it would be highly unsafe to accept their testimony.

(d) PW12's evidence by itself had inherent improbabilities in view of the improvements made by him in the chief examination from what was stated in the confession given to the police. In the absence of any acceptable unimpeachable evidence to corroborate his version, it would be highly unsafe to render a finding of guilt by relying upon PW12's evidence alone.

(e) The tendency of the investigating officer to create evidence in the form of witnesses to suit their case as discussed above, also makes it highly unsafe to render a finding of guilt.

(f) The evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution at best leads to a grave suspicion as against some of the accused and does not pass the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is trite that suspicion howsoever high, cannot take the place of proof.

On the impugned judgment passed by the trial court, the High Court also observed that, "we fail to understand as to the fact that the guidelines imposed in Bachan Singh's case (supra), which requires the Court to weigh the “aggravating circumstances” against the “mitigating circumstances” and which legal ratio has been consistently followed in all subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was failed to adhere to by the trial Court. Rather, the trial Court had curiously made an observation that there were no mitigating circumstances in this case to show leniency. While holding so, the trial Court lost sight of the defense case that the assailants in this case did not have any previous antecedents and all of them had decent educational qualifications."

Cause Title: State vs P Ponnusamy

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Madras High CourtJustice MS RameshJustice Sunder MohanMurder Case

Ananya Soni