Survivor in suicide pact punishable: Supreme Court upholds boyfriend's conviction in actress Prathyusha death case

The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday upheld the conviction of one Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy in the 2002 suicide of Telugu actress Prathyusha.

The Court directed Reddy, who was Prathyusha's boyfriend, to surrender within four weeks.

Pertinently, the Court also clarified the legal position when it comes to responsibility in cases of suicide pact, a mutual agreement to end life together.

It held that in such cases, the person who survives the attempt or does not go through with it is culpable.

“Suicide by a pact is culpable,” the Court said.

Elaborating on the same, the Court said,

“A suicide pact involves mutual encouragement and reciprocal commitment to die together. The survivor’s presence and participation acts as a direct catalyst for the deceased’s actions," the Court ruled.

In the present case, the Court noted that Reddy had purchased the pesticide with the knowledge of its lethal nature and had consumed the poison along with Prathyusha though he survived.

"In the present case, the appellant-accused has abetted the offence under Section 306 of the IPC by purchasing the pesticide with the knowledge of its lethal nature. Furthermore, in absence of any explanation by the accused as to why the deceased and the accused consumed poison would lead to an adverse inference that it was consumed with intent to commit suicide," the Court said.

Thus, he was held to be party to suicide pact rendering him guilty of abetment of suicide offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The ruling brought an end to a 23-year legal battle over whether the incident was a suicide pact or whether Reddy had driven Prathyusha to take her own life.

A Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Rajesh Bindal held that the evidence did not support claims that Prathyusha had been strangled, and that rape could not be proven. The Court, however, found clear evidence that she was poisoned.

The Court noted that the conduct of the accused warranted legal consequences.

Justice Manmohan said,

"There was adverse inference against the accused."

The case dates back to February 2002. Reddy and Prathyusha were in love and wanted to marry each other but Reddy's parents were opposed to the same.

Both of them consumed poison and while Prathyusha died, Reddy survived.

The initial investigation treated the incident as a case of abetment of suicide rather than murder.

After the probe, Reddy was charged and tried for offences including abetment of suicide. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment for offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC.

The case then moved to the High Court which upheld Reddy’s conviction but reduced his sentence to two years while increasing the fine imposed on him.

Later, two separate appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.

One was filed by Reddy challenging his conviction and questioning the findings against him.

Prathyusha’s mother, on the other hand, challenged the reduction of sentence and the verdict and conclusions reached by the High Court.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court looked at several key issues.

The Court examined whether the facts suggested a suicide pact between Prathyusha and Reddy. It also considered whether the offence of driving someone to suicide had been proven.

Finally, the Court reviewed whether the High Court had made any mistake in changing the sentence given by the trial court.

After examining the material on record, the Supreme Court said that the facts and evidence made it clear that it was a case of suicide pact between the accused and the deceased.

A suicide pact 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 stated.

“If not for the active participation of both the parties, the act would not occur,” the Bench underscored.

Law treats such conduct as abetment because the State has a fundamental interest in preserving life and any assistance in ending life is treated as a crime against the State, the Bench ruled.

The accused’s conduct in entering into and acting upon the suicide pact made him liable under Section 306 read with Section 107 (abetment of a thing) of IPC, the Court concluded.

"His participation directly facilitated the deceased’s suicide… His culpability therefore stands established,” the Bench ruled.

The Court concluded that the prosecution had clearly established that Prathyusha was poisoned and that the legal conditions for holding Reddy responsible were met.

It also held that there was no reason to question the way the High Court had handled the case.

Thus, it dismissed both the appeals related to this case, while upholding the High Court’s conviction and sentence.

Reddy was ordered to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.

[Read Live Coverage]

[Read Judgment]