Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with a sensational murder case allegedly rooted in a bitter land dispute, where a reputed doctor was attacked in broad daylight outside a hospital. The case involved allegations of a carefully orchestrated criminal conspiracy comprising secret meetings, hired assailants, money transfers, electronic surveillance, and recovery of incriminating material, while also raising crucial questions regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence and the scope of interference in an acquittal judgment.
Brief Facts :
The case arose from the murder of a reputed doctor allegedly linked to a property dispute between the deceased and the family of certain accused persons. According to the prosecution, hostility developed after multiple complaints relating to trespass and land grabbing were lodged by the deceased, ultimately leading to a conspiracy to eliminate him for gaining control over the disputed land. The prosecution alleged that conspiracy meetings were held, money was arranged for hired assailants, and surveillance of the deceased was conducted before the attack was carried out outside a hospital. Initially, the FIR was registered under Section 307 IPC and later altered to Section 302 IPC after the victim succumbed to injuries. During investigation, reliance was placed on eyewitnesses, CCTV footage, electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, recovery of weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, call detail records, and the testimony of an approver.
After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 341, and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons and imposed death sentences on several of them, but the High Court later acquitted all accused persons after reappreciating the evidence, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Contentions of Appellant :
The Appellant-State contended that the High Court wrongly discarded reliable evidence including eyewitness testimonies, CCTV footage, electronic evidence, recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, call detail records supported by certificates under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, and the testimony of the approver. It was argued that the prosecution had successfully established the criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC and the involvement of the accused persons through a complete chain of circumstances. The State further argued that the High Court erred in holding that re-enactment and gait analysis violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
Contentions of Respondent :
The counsel for the Respondents argued that the prosecution case suffered from material contradictions, unexplained delays, unreliable witnesses, and procedural irregularities. They contended that the evidence of the approver was unreliable and lacked proper corroboration as required under law. The Respondents further challenged the admissibility of electronic evidence, CCTV footage, gait analysis reports, and call detail records on the ground that the mandatory requirements under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act were not properly complied with. They also argued that the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 162 Cr.P.C. revealed serious contradictions in the prosecution case and supported the acquittal recorded by the High Court.
Observation of the Court :
The Supreme Court made strong observations on the nature of the crime and remarked that the present case was a reflection of “how humans tend to surpass all limits of sound human behavior and even go to the extent of crushing human lives in the pursuance of their greed.” The Court further described the matter as involving “a disputed piece of land, contesting claims over the same, prolonged litigation… and a broad day-light murder in Chennai.”
While appreciating the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the Court observed that “their testimonies are wholly incriminating and there is nothing unnatural or doubtful regarding their presence at the place of occurrence.” The Bench further held that “the manner of assault and nature of injuries specified by the eye witnesses are consistent with the medical examination reports, which is a material corroboration.”
The Court also disapproved the manner in which contradictions were projected during trial and observed that “no material contradiction has surfaced and the minor contradictions appear quite natural.” It further stated that “there is a gross procedural infirmity in the manner of contradiction of the PWs.”
On the issue of appellate scrutiny, the Court noted that since the Trial Court and High Court had arrived at opposite conclusions on the same evidence, “it falls upon this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and to deliver a final finding.”
Decision of the Court :
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and held that the High Court had erred in reversing the conviction recorded by the Trial Court after discarding reliable evidence on untenable grounds. The Court reappreciated the oral, documentary, electronic, and circumstantial evidence on record and accepted the prosecution case regarding the criminal conspiracy and involvement of the accused persons in the murder.
Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Ponnusamy & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2493-2502 of 2025 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 2503-2512 of 2025
Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 403 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. M. Sundresh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv.; Ms. Shilpa Saini, Adv.; Ms. Ratakshi Sarvaria, Adv.; Mr. K.M. Abish, Adv.; Ms. Shaesta Irshad, Adv.; Mr. Ragib, Adv.; M/s Chambers of Kartik Seth, AOR; Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.; Mr. M.F. Philip, Adv.; Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR; Mr. Kartikeya Dang, Adv.; Mr. Aadarsh Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv.; Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Adv.; Ms. Muskan Anand, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. M.F. Philip, Adv.; Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR; Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv.; Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Adv.; Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Adv.; Mr. Siddhartha, Adv.; Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv.; Mr. Bharathimohan M., Adv.; Ms. V. Swetha, Adv.; Mr. Vairawan A.S., AOR; Mr. Navneet Dugar, AOR; Mr. Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR; Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.; Mr. N. Sai Vinod, AOR; Ms. Kanu Garg, Adv.; Mr. Raunak Arora, Adv.; Mr. Kavinesh R.N., Adv.; Mr. Shubham Chopra, Adv.; Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Anindita Mitra, AOR; Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv.; Mr. Lakshman Raja T., Adv.; Ms. Payoshi Roy, Adv.; Mr. Kaushal Kishore, Adv.; Mr. Amit Pratap Shaunak, Adv.; Mr. Achintya Tiwari, Adv.; Mr. Priyanshu Maheshwari, Adv.; Ms. Shivangi Chaturvedi, Adv.; Mr. M. Srinivasan, Adv.; Mr. D. Narayana Kumar, Adv.; Mr. C. Solomon, AOR; Mr. Shri Singh, Adv.; Ms. Arshiya Ghosh, Adv.; Ms. Rudrali Patil, Adv.; Ms. Arunima M., Adv.; Mr. Varuni Aggarwal, Adv.; Mr. S. Parthasarathi, AOR; Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Shivani Vij, AOR; Mr. Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Adv.; Ms. Siddhi Nagwekar, Adv.; Mr. Yash Tayal, Adv.
