Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan, has held that a surviving partner in a suicide pact can be held guilty of abetment of suicide, finding that mutual commitment to die together provides the psychological impetus necessary to attract criminal liability. The Bench affirmed the conviction of Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy for abetting the suicide of a well-known Telugu actress in 2002, after both consumed organophosphate pesticide amid family opposition to their proposed marriage. The Court dismissed appeals filed by both the accused and the deceased's mother, who had alleged rape and murder by manual strangulation, finding those claims unsupported by forensic and medical evidence.

The deceased was a Telugu actress who had been in a long-term romantic relationship with the accused, an engineering student, for nearly a decade. Both wished to marry, and while the deceased's mother had eventually consented to the union, the accused's family remained firmly opposed and threatened self-harm if the marriage proceeded.

Also Read: SC Declines Article 32 Challenge to ECI’s “Logical Discrepancy” Tag in West Bengal Electoral Roll Revision; Grants Liberty to Represent Before Commission

On the evening of the incident in February 2002, the accused met the deceased at a beauty parlour and both subsequently left together in his car. They were later admitted to a private hospital, having consumed organophosphate pesticide. The deceased died the following morning; the accused survived and was discharged several weeks later.

The accused was alleged to have purchased the pesticide, a knife, and soft drinks earlier that evening. The prosecution contended that he had aided the deceased in consuming poison by procuring it. The accused's family's opposition to the marriage and the consequent emotional distress were cited as the backdrop to the incident. The deceased's mother alleged rape and murder by manual strangulation, relying on an initial postmortem report. The prosecution, however, proceeded on charges of abetment of suicide and attempt to commit suicide, supported by forensic reports, hospital records, and expert committee findings.

The Court observed that the allegation of homicidal death by manual strangulation was "wholly unsustainable," noting that the deceased's mother had herself admitted that when she saw her daughter in the ICU, the latter was not only alive but also conscious and able to respond in a feeble voice to the doctor's questions. The Court recorded that "such a condition is medically inconsistent with strangulation" and that "the fact that the deceased was able to speak and exhibit motor activity demonstrates beyond doubt that strangulation was not the cause of death."

On the cause of death, the Court stated that "a wealth of ocular and medical evidence points to poisoning" and that "the convergence of multiple independent expert opinions lends overwhelming credibility to the conclusion that the deceased died of poisoning."

On the question of rape, the Court recorded that two independent laboratory reports had concluded that semen and spermatozoa were not detected on the cotton swabs. It further stated that the postmortem report itself "did not find any evidence of sexual assault prior to death, inasmuch as, it did not find any bite marks on the lip, cheeks, neck or breast or injury marks or scratch marks that are normally found in cases of sexual assault."

On the conduct of the doctor who prepared the postmortem report, the Court observed that he had "not only misinterpreted the therapeutic injuries as the injuries caused by violence but had not exercised restraint before expressing his opinion" and that "his actions were not only medically unsound but also irresponsible, as they created unnecessary public controversy." The Court further stated that "the impact of a doctor issuing an erroneous postmortem report and publicising it through the media goes far beyond individual misconduct" and that such conduct "spreads misinformation, erodes trust in investigative agencies and institutions such as the police and judiciary, prejudices public opinion, traumatises the victim's family, and undermines the rule of law."

On the liability of the surviving partner in a suicide pact, the Court stated that "notwithstanding the culpability of the act of purchasing pesticide, the accused's participation in a suicide pact renders him culpable under Section 107 IPC" and that "a suicide pact involves mutual encouragement and reciprocal commitment to die together." It further observed that "the survivor's presence and participation acts as a direct catalyst for the deceased's actions" and that "abetting as defined under Section 107 IPC is not limited to physical act of supplying means to commit suicide." The Court stated that "any psychological assurance or instigation, as long as the same is intentional and directly related to the commission of offence, also constitutes abetment."

The Court further recorded that "it is the reciprocal commitment of each party to commit suicide which provides necessary impetus/support to the other to go through with the act" and that "in a suicide pact, it is implicit that each participant knows the intent of the other to commit the act knowing that their withdrawal from the pact will likely deter the other." It observed that "each party's resolve to commit the act is, therefore, reinforced and strengthened due to the participation of the other party" and that "suicide in a suicide pact is conditional upon mutual participation of the other." The Court stated that "if not for the active participation of both the parties, the act would not occur" and that "the law treats such conduct as abetment because the State has a fundamental interest in preserving life" and that "any assistance in ending life is treated as a crime against the State."

The Court concluded that "the accused's conduct in entering into and acting upon the suicide pact falls squarely within all the three situations envisaged in Section 107 of the IPC" and that "his participation directly facilitated the deceased's suicide." It further recorded that "it is not his defence that the deceased was the dominant personality who pressured him into the pact" and that "his culpability therefore stands established."

Also Read: Human Rights Commission Cannot Entertain Private Property Disputes: Gujarat High Court Gujarat High Court Quashes Proceedings And Issues Guidelines To Prevent Jurisdictional Overreach

The Court directed that “the present Appeals being bereft of merits are dismissed, but with no order as to costs. The Appellant is directed to surrender within four weeks. The conduct of Dr. Muni Swamy in furnishing an erroneous report, publicising it prematurely and thereby violating professional ethics and the sub judice rule constitutes contempt of Court. It also breaches medical ethics, which demand competence, honesty and diligence. However, in view of his demise, this Court refrains from imposing any further consequences.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate; Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, Senior Advocate; Mr. Gireesh Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Senior Advocate for CBI

Case Title: Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v. State C.B.I.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 160
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2012 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 894–895 of 2012
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan