The Supreme Court has ruled that a person who survives a suicide pact may be held criminally liable for abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that a mutual agreement to end one’s life supplies the psychological reinforcement necessary to attract culpability.
A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan delivered the judgment while affirming the conviction of Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy in connection with the 2002 death of Tamil/Telugu actress Prathyusha.
The appeals before the Court arose out of Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2012 (Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v. State, CBI) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 894-895 of 2012 (P. Sarojini Devi v. CBI).
Background of the Case
Prathyusha died in 2002 after consuming organophosphate pesticide. According to the prosecution, she and Reddy were in a relationship that faced opposition from his parents. It was alleged that the two consumed poison together pursuant to a suicide pact; however, Reddy survived.
Reddy was subsequently convicted on charges of abetment of suicide and attempt to suicide. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. In 2004, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reduced his sentence to two years.
Reddy approached the Supreme Court challenging his conviction for abetment of suicide. Separately, P. Sarojini Devi, the mother of the deceased, also moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision reducing the sentence. She further alleged that her daughter had been raped and poisoned.
Mutual Suicide Pact and Abetment Under Section 107 IPC
The principal question before the Court concerned whether participation in a suicide pact constitutes abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC.
The Bench clarified that abetment is not confined to the physical act of supplying the means for suicide. The Court held that participation in a suicide pact involves mutual encouragement and reciprocal assurance to commit the act. The continued presence and involvement of the surviving partner operates as a direct catalyst for the deceased’s decision.
The Court observed that in such arrangements, each individual’s determination to commit suicide is strengthened by the other’s commitment. Withdrawal by one party may deter the other, demonstrating that the act is conditional upon mutual participation.
Emphasising the statutory framework, the Bench held that psychological instigation or assurance, when intentional and directly connected with the commission of the offence, falls within the ambit of Section 107 IPC. The Court concluded that the accused’s conduct in entering into and acting upon the suicide pact satisfied all three situations contemplated under Section 107 IPC.
The Bench further noted that it was not the accused’s case that the deceased had dominated or compelled him into the pact. In these circumstances, the Court held that his culpability stood established.
Medical and Forensic Findings
The Supreme Court rejected the allegations of rape and manual strangulation raised by the deceased’s mother.
Medical evidence from doctors at CARE Hospital indicated that the deceased was conscious at the time of admission and stated that she had consumed pesticide. Forensic reports from the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (AP FSL) and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) confirmed the presence of organophosphate poison.
An expert committee, including members from AIIMS, ruled out strangulation and sexual assault.
The Court also relied on evidence establishing that the accused had purchased “Nuvacron,” a highly toxic organophosphate pesticide, on the evening of the incident. He was last seen in the company of the deceased before both were taken to hospital.
In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the accused denied even being admitted to hospital. The Court drew an adverse inference from this complete denial in light of the evidence on record.
Liability Not Diluted by Suicide Pact
Distinguishing precedents cited by the defence, the Court held that the case did not involve mere passive presence or harassment. Instead, the accused had procured the pesticide, actively participated in the pact, and failed to dissuade the deceased.
The Bench observed that the State has a fundamental interest in preserving life and that assistance in ending life is treated as a crime against the State. A suicide pact does not reduce or negate criminal responsibility.
Final Order
Dismissing both sets of appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and directed the accused to surrender within four weeks.
Senior Advocates Nagamuthu and L. Narasimha Reddy appeared for the accused.
Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi appeared for the CBI.
Advocate Gireesh Kumar appeared for P. Sarojini Devi.
