Supreme Court quotes Tagore on ‘human greed’, upholds life term of accused in 2013 murder case of Chennai doctor

The Supreme Court quoted Rabindranath 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.”

“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, a few advocates, a few henchmen and a broad daylight murder in Chennai. These are the highlights of what we are about to discuss in the present case,” the May 19 order read. 

Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma termed the case a “classic illustration” of how humans can resort to “crushing lives” for material gain. 

Land dispute, family and death

The case stemmed from the murder of Dr Subbiah, a reputed doctor working at Billroth Hospital. 

The investigation of the case revealed that there was a prolonged dispute between the victim and the family of the accused persons regarding ownership of a land parcel measuring 2 acres in Anjugramam Village, Kanyakumari District. It was also placed on record that multiple litigations and complaints were filed.

An alleged conspiracy meeting took place in July 2013, involving several accused persons and hired assailants to plan the murder of Dr Subbiah. Two of the accused, Ponnusamy and Mary Pushpam, belonged to the family involved in the land dispute with Dr Subbiah. The other two accused were their sons, Basil P M and Boris P M, and were allegedly active participants in planning the conspiracy.

On September 14, 2013, he was attacked by three men and later succumbed to his injuries on September 23, 2013. 

The final chargesheet was filed on May 6, 2015, against the accused persons for conspiracy and murder offences.

On November 11, 2021, the trial court convicted several accused persons and awarded multiple death sentences for murder and conspiracy.

Subsequently, by judgment dated June 14, 2024, the Madras High Court re-appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted all the accused persons.

‘Parental instinct clouds judgments’ 

• Pointing out that the Supreme Court has a slightly larger role to play, the bench observed that parents continue to love and support their children irrespective of age, even when no one else stands by them.
• It further noted that in the advanced years, parents often fail to question or resist the actions of their children due to affection and emotional dependence, believing it to be their duty to protect and support them under all circumstances.
• Considering the role played by the two accused parents, the apex court stated that their role had to be appreciated in the backdrop of these human factors.
• Noting that two of the accused were parents of two other accused, the apex court found that the matter stemmed from a deeply misplaced sense of parental obligation and emotional attachment towards securing the perceived welfare and future of their children.
• The court also observed that parental instinct to protect and provide is among the strongest human impulses and can, at times, cloud judgment and rational thinking.
• The court further noted that, in the present case, the accused parents played a comparatively limited role and largely acted in accordance with the directions of their children, the other accused persons.
• The court clarified that these observations were not intended to condone the actions of the accused persons, but were made only for the limited purpose of appreciating the human factors underlying their conduct.

Role of courts

• The court noted that the Madras High Court introduced numerous fictional probabilities in the sequence of events, without being supported by any material placed on record. 
• The top court clarified that the job of a criminal court is not to order acquittals by entertaining vague and ordinary doubts, convoluted theories and suppositions. 
• The court noted that the police conducted an exercise of reenactment or demonstration of the crime scene by involving the accused persons. 
• However, it was pointed out that a re-enactment exercise does not constitute direct evidence of the offence. 
• The apex court held that all the accused persons are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fines imposed by the trial court.  
• The apex court granted the accused eight weeks to file appropriate petitions seeking the invocation of the power of pardon. 
• The court noted that the manner of assault and nature of injuries specified by the eyewitnesses are consistent with the medical examination report. 

Arguments

Appearing for the state, one of the counsels, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, was arguing along with advocate Kartik Seth and others.

Luthra argued that the trial court was based on credible and reliable evidence, including the evidence of eye witnesses, approvers, call details records, money trail, electronic and scientific evidence, etc.

It was submitted that the Madras High Court did not consider the circumstantial evidence of conspiracy and prior connection between the accused person.

On the contrary, the accused were represented by advocate M F Philip and others who argued that the appellate court must not ordinarily reverse a judgment of acquittal as long as the previous judgment reflects a legally plausible view and is not unsustainable.

It was argued that the money trail between the accused persons was not unusual, as the accused persons were known to each other.

It was further contended that the investigating officers failed to carry out an independent investigation in the matter, as they admitted that they did not investigate other persons who had claimed the disputed land and had enmity with the victim.