Supreme Court Restores Murder Conviction: Minor Contradictions Cannot Defeat Reliable Eyewitness and Corroborated Approver Evidence
Case Name: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Ponnusamy & Ors. with Criminal Appeal Nos. 2503-2512/2025
Citation: 2026 INSC 507
Date of Judgment/Order: 19 May 2026
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Held: The Supreme Court held that an appellate court cannot discard otherwise credible prosecution evidence by magnifying minor contradictions, omissions or perceived improbabilities, particularly when direct eyewitness testimony, approver evidence, motive, money trail, recoveries and surrounding circumstances together form a consistent chain establishing murder and conspiracy. The Court clarified that every contradiction is not fatal; the weight of a contradiction must be assessed in the context of the witness, the nature of the trial, and the overall evidentiary record. The Court further held that the testimony of an approver must be approached with caution and ordinarily requires corroboration, but once such testimony is supported by independent direct and circumstantial evidence, it can safely be relied upon.
Summary: The case arose from the brutal daylight attack on Dr. Subbiah, a reputed doctor in Chennai, who was assaulted outside Billroth Hospital on 14.09.2013 and later succumbed to his injuries on 23.09.2013. The prosecution alleged that the murder was the outcome of a conspiracy arising from a long-standing land dispute between the deceased and the family of the accused concerning valuable property in Anjugramam Village, Kanyakumari District. The Trial Court convicted the accused, relying on eyewitnesses, the approver’s testimony, evidence of conspiracy meetings, money transfers, recoveries, and other circumstantial material, and awarded death sentence to several accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The Madras High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted all accused, holding that the approver and other witnesses were unreliable and that the electronic and circumstantial evidence was doubtful. The Supreme Court reappreciated the evidence and found that the High Court had proceeded on conjectures, an overly suspicious approach, and an erroneous appreciation of contradictions. It held that the eyewitnesses were reliable, the approver’s account was materially corroborated, and the prosecution had proved both the assault and the conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the Madras High Court, and restored the conviction of the respondents/accused. However, as the State did not press for capital punishment, the Court sentenced all respondents/convicts to imprisonment for life along with the fines imposed by the Trial Court, with the default sentences for non-payment of fine to remain unchanged. Considering the limited role, advanced age and peculiar mitigating circumstances of A1 and A2, the Court granted them eight weeks to file mercy petitions before the Governor of Tamil Nadu under Article 161 of the Constitution and directed that they shall not be arrested and their sentence shall remain suspended until such petitions are decided. All other respondents were directed to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks, failing which coercive measures could be initiated. Pending applications were disposed of.