Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Pratyusha Suicide Pact Case, Rules Out Rape and Murder Allegations, SC affirms death due to organophosphate poisoning, holds surviving partner culpable under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide; condemns premature postmortem disclosure by doctor
The Supreme Court of India on 17th February 2026 delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v. State C.B.I., affirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for abetment of suicide and attempt to commit suicide respectively. The case stemmed from the tragic death of actress Ms. Pratyusha, who died after consuming pesticide in a mutual suicide pact with the appellant, her fiancé.
The Court thoroughly examined the voluminous evidence, including medical records, forensic reports, witness testimonies, and expert opinions from multiple independent panels, including the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (APFSL), Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The unanimous conclusion established that the cause of death was organophosphate poisoning and not manual strangulation or sexual assault, as had been speculated during the investigation.
Significantly, the Supreme Court highlighted the discrepancy between the initial postmortem report prepared by Dr. B. Muni Swamy, which alleged manual strangulation and sexual assault, and subsequent forensic and expert committee findings that disproved these claims. The Court condemned Dr. Muni Swamy’s premature public disclosure of postmortem findings, labeling it unprofessional conduct that distorted public perception and undermined the investigation's integrity. Although disciplinary action was recommended, the Court refrained from further consequences due to the doctor's demise.
The Court also addressed the contentious issue of the male DNA found on the vaginal cotton swab, clarifying that the CDFD reports excluded the appellant and other suspects from being the source, and no semen or spermatozoa were detected by APFSL and CFSL. Thus, the rape allegation was found to be unsupported by scientific evidence.
The Court further ruled that the appellant's act of purchasing the pesticide ‘Nuvacron’ with full knowledge of its lethality and consuming it alongside the deceased constituted abetment of suicide. It underscored the principle that in a mutual suicide pact, the surviving partner who encourages or participates in the act is legally culpable under Section 306 IPC. The Court rejected the appellant’s defense of accidental consumption or intent to threaten family members as implausible.
On the appellant’s failure to provide any credible explanation under Section 313 CrPC regarding the purchase and consumption of poison, the Court drew an adverse inference, reinforcing his guilt. The Court dismissed the appellant's plea for leniency under the Probation of Offenders Act, emphasizing the gravity of abetment of suicide, punishable with imprisonment up to ten years.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and directed the appellant to surrender within four weeks. The judgment reinforces the legal stance that mutual suicide pacts implicate all participants in abetment of suicide and underscores the importance of professional ethics and restraint among medical practitioners involved in forensic examinations.
Bottom Line:
Suicide Pact - Surviving partner in a mutual suicide pact can be held legally culpable under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code Sections 306, 309, 302, 107, Evidence Act Section 106, Criminal Procedure Code Section 313
Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v. State C.B.I., (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2854235
