“Surviving Partner In Mutual Suicide Pact Legally Culpable”: Supreme Court While Holding Telugu Actress' Partner Guilty Of Abetment Of Her Suicide

The Court was hearing criminal appeals arising from proceedings in the 2003 mutual suicide case involving Telugu actress Pratyusha, in which the surviving partner was prosecuted for abetment on the allegation that both had jointly entered into a suicide pact.

A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan observed: “A suicide pact involves mutual encouragement and reciprocal commitment to die together. The survivor’s presence and participation act as a direct catalyst for the deceased’s actions. It is pertinent to mention that abetting, as defined under Section 107 IPC, is not limited to the physical act of supplying means to commit suicide. Accordingly, any psychological assurance or instigation, as long as the same is intentional and directly related to the commission of an offence, also constitutes abetment”.

Background

The prosecution's case was that the accused and the deceased consumed pesticide together pursuant to a prior agreement to end their lives. Evidence on record showed that the accused had purchased a highly toxic pesticide, knowing its lethal nature. Medical and forensic evidence confirmed ingestion of organophosphate poison.

Witness testimony and surrounding circumstances indicated that both individuals acted in concert and that the accused neither prevented the deceased nor withdrew from participation. The defence contended that there was no instigation or intentional aid and relied on precedents dealing with harassment-based suicides to argue the absence of abetment.

Lower courts had evaluated these rival claims in light of statutory provisions and factual findings, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Apex Court examined the statutory framework of Section 107 IPC, reiterating that abetment includes instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. It emphasised that intentional facilitation of the act, whether physical or psychological, is sufficient to attract liability.

Addressing the nature of suicide pacts, the Bench held that participation itself constitutes culpable conduct. It stated, “Notwithstanding the culpability of the act of purchasing pesticide, the Accused’s participation in a suicide pact renders him culpable under Section 107 IPC.”

The Court clarified that abetment is not confined to supplying the means for suicide. It observed, “Any psychological assurance or instigation, as long as the same is intentional and directly related to the commission of an offence, also constitutes abetment.”

Explaining the doctrinal rationale, the Bench held, “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.” The Court reasoned that each participant’s resolve is strengthened by the other’s participation, making the act conditional upon mutual involvement.

The Court further explained that in such situations, withdrawal by one party would likely deter the other, demonstrating that participation operates as a direct catalyst. Therefore, the law treats such conduct as abetment because preservation of life is a fundamental state interest.

Distinguishing precedents cited by the defence, the Court held that decisions involving harassment-induced suicides were inapplicable because those cases lacked proof of intentional aid. In contrast, the present case involved procurement of poison, knowledge of intent, and joint participation.

The Court also noted that the failure of the accused to satisfactorily explain incriminating circumstances when examined strengthened the prosecution's case. It found the defence explanation implausible and unsupported by evidence.

On the overall merits of the case, the Court, after evaluating the entire evidentiary record, ruled out the allegation of murder by strangulation and held that the medical, forensic, and ocular evidence overwhelmingly established death due to organophosphate poisoning. The forensic reports detecting pesticide poisoning in the viscera and related samples were treated as scientifically reliable indicators of the cause of death, outweighing the earlier post-mortem opinion, which had attributed death to asphyxia.

The Court further concluded that the allegation of rape was not made out. It was observed that neither the post-mortem findings nor the laboratory analyses revealed any evidence of sexual assault, and even the DNA material detected on the swab did not match the accused or other suspects. It held that, at such a belated stage, it would be impermissible to attribute death to rape or strangulation when consistent scientific and testimonial evidence pointed otherwise.

On the issue of culpability, the Court rejected the defence theory of accidental consumption and held that the surrounding circumstances established intentional ingestion of pesticide. It found that the accused’s act of procuring the poison and participating in the sequence of events leading to consumption constituted conduct falling within the scope of abetment under Section 107 IPC.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court concluded that the accused’s conduct satisfied the legal ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC, since his participation directly facilitated the act and reinforced the deceased’s decision. The Court held that the evidence established intentional assistance and reciprocal commitment, making the survivor criminally liable.

Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The appellant was directed to surrender before the authorities within the time granted by the Court.

Cause Title: Guddipalli Siddhartha Reddy v. State (CBI) (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 160)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocates M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Sanjay Singh, Tarun, G. N. Reddy, AOR, P. Venkat Reddy, P. Srinivas Reddy, Sunni Muneer Basha

Respondents: Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG; Nachiketa Joshi, Senior Advocate; Advocates Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Sachin Sharma, Amit Sharma-B and Others

Click here to read/download Judgment