Suicide pact – A surviving individual culpable for abetment

The Supreme Court of India in its latest judgment, Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy vs. State CBI, held that where an individual survives a ‘mutual suicide pact’, such individual shall be held liable under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for abetment.

The case involves the surviving partner of the late actress Ms. Pratyusha, who died in 2003 by way of suicide. The Court affirmed that the surviving partner is guilty of abetment of suicide, as a mutual suicide pact includes assurance, encouragement and reciprocal commitment.

This article examines the distinction between ‘suicide’ and a ‘suicide pact’, analyses India’s evolving legal framework on attempt to suicide and abetment to suicide, reviews the goals of the World Health Organization’s global decriminalization of suicide, and discusses the latest judgment of the Supreme Court of India on the subject.

Suicide refers to an individual act of taking one’s own life. The circumstances around this gore act have often been connected with certain mental health issues. However, the cause may differ from person to person. Short-term risk factors for suicide include personal crisis, depression, anxiety, loss, etc. In 2021, approximately 7,27,000 individuals worldwide died by suicide, and an estimated 15-20% of these deaths resulting from self-poisoning through the ingestion of pesticides.

An ‘attempt to commit suicide’, refers to a situation when the act to commit suicide fails to accomplish the purpose.

Abetment of suicide, on the other hand refers to acts of encouraging, assisting, instigating, or pressuring another person to take their own life. It includes any form of support, coercion, or influence that leads the other person towards committing suicide.

A suicide pact, by contrast, involves a mutual agreement and participation by two or more individuals, who decide to end their lives together. This element of ‘collective intent and coordination’, differentiates a suicide pact and suicide carried out by an individual.

Section 309 of the IPC criminalized the act of an attempt to suicide, by prescribing a punishment of simple imprisonment for a term that could extend up to one year, or a fine, or both.

However, recognising that colonial-era law failed to account for the mental health conditions, the Indian Parliament introduced the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHA), decriminalising attempt to commit suicide (with an equivalent amendment to the IPC, now the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)). The MHA marked a significant transition and protected people with mental health issues.

The MHA, in Section 2(1)(s) provides the definition of mental illness covering mood, orientation, memory, behaviour that may impair judgement, including mental conditions arising from alcohol and drug abuse. Further, Section 115 of the MHA decriminalises attempt to suicide as provided under the Section 309 IPC, and the individual will be presumed to be under severe stress, if not otherwise proved, and the individual shall be provided with rehabilitation and care, to minimise the reoccurrence of the act.

The IPC prescribed punishment for the offence of abetment of suicide of up to 10 years, along with a fine under Section 306 (now Section 108 of BNS), provided that the requirements of abetment are satisfied (as defined under Section 107 of IPC, now Section 45 of BNS).

In 2023, the World Health Organization, issued guidance to eliminate coercive practices in mental healthcare and for the decriminalisation of suicide. The organisation took a stand that categorising suicide or suicide attempts as crimes go against basic human rights and make it harder to implement effective suicide prevention efforts.

The deceased, late Ms. Pratyusha - a famous actress, and the appellant-accused - an engineering student, wanted to marry each other. However, the parents of the appellant-accused were against the marriage, with the mother of the appellant-accused also threatening to commit suicide. The deceased and the appellant-accused resorted to consuming ‘organophosphate’, a pesticide poison, and were later admitted to hospital. The deceased passed away, but the appellant-accused survived.

The allegations against the appellant – accused included the fact that he purchased the pesticide along with a knife, chocolates and soft drink; homicidal death by manual strangulation, along with rape and murder.

Although not the designated duty doctor at the time, Dr. B Muni Swamy, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Hyderabad, independently conducted the post mortem, and issued an erroneous and premature opinion indicating death by strangulation following rape and later maintained that such a possibility could not be excluded. The deceased’s mother similarly alleged rape followed by murder by strangulation, as opposed to poisoning, and it did not adequately pursue the investigation or establish the charge of murder.

The Court, dismissed the allegations relating to homicidal death by manual strangulation, and rape, noting that the deceased was conscious, responsive, and showed no injuries consistent with strangulation. Medical testimony and the deceased’s own statements establish poisoning as the cause of death. Further, two forensic reports, expert committee reports, and AIIMS reports found no evidence of rape.

The Court also dismissed claims of ‘accidental consumption’ by the appellant-accused of ‘Nuvacron’, a highly toxic pesticide, as the appellant-accused, an engineering student, was aware of the consequences of the said product.

The Court held that the cause of death of the deceased was due to poisoning, and the appellant-accused has abetted the death of the deceased by purchasing ‘Nuvacron’ for consumption by both, with knowledge of the lethal nature of the pesticide. It amounts to intentionally aiding or facilitating the commission of an offence, which satisfies the conditions put forth under Section 107 IPC, thereby holding the appellant-accused guilty of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.

The Court observed that where the appellant-accused provided no explanation for the circumstances in which both the deceased and the appellant-accused consumed poison, an adverse inference may legitimately be drawn that the poison was consumed with the intention of committing suicide. Hence, going to a hospital in such circumstances constitutes a natural human reaction when confronted with a life-threatening situation, which does not remove the intent of ending their lives, thereby establishing mens rea.

Further, given that the family members were against the marriage, the appellant-accused and the deceased decided to mutually end their lives, which was bolstered by the purchase of pesticide and encouraged the deceased to participate in the suicide pact (mutual encouragement). The action of one was a reciprocal commitment for the other, and the participation of the deceased in the suicide pact, amounted to abetment under Section 107 IPC.

The Supreme Court in this decision has clarified the legal position and has rightly held that a suicide pact amounts to abetment under Section 107 of the IPC (now Section 45 of BNS) for the surviving participant.

In the instant case, the appellant-accused and the deceased mutually decided to end their lives and procured pesticide, thereby satisfying the three ingredients of abetment under Section 107 of the IPC.

About the authors: Prashanth S Shivadass is a Partner and Sumonto Chakravarty is an Associate at Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers).

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.