Surviving Partner In Mutual Suicide Pact Liable For Abetment :Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a surviving partner in a suicide pact can be held guilty of abetment of suicide, ruling that mutual commitment to die together provides the psychological impetus necessary to attract liability under Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC.

The Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan affirmed the conviction of Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy for abetement of suicide of famous Tamil/Telugu actress Prathyusha in 2002.

The case arose from the 2002 death of actress Pratyusha, who died after consuming organophosphate pesticide along with the accused amid opposition to their proposed marriage.

As per the brief facts, Prathyushya and Reddy were in a relationship which was opposed by the latter's parents. It was the case that they consumed poison together, but Reddy survived. Later, he was convicted on charges of abetment to suicide and attempt to suicide. He was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, which was later reduced to two years by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2004.

Challenging his conviction on the charge of abetment to suicide, he approached the Supreme Court. Prathyushya's mother also approached the Supreme Court, challenging the reduction of the sentence to Reddy. She alleged that her daughter was raped and poisoned. 

Mutual Commitment Amounts To Abetment

The Court clarified that abetment under Section 107 IPC is not confined to physically supplying the means of suicide. Participation in a suicide pact, it said, involves “mutual encouragement and reciprocal commitment to die together,” and the survivor's presence acts as a direct catalyst for the deceased's actions.

The Bench observed that in a suicide pact, each participant's resolve is reinforced by the other's commitment. Withdrawal by one may deter the other, making the act conditional upon mutual participation. The reciprocal commitment, the Court held, provides the necessary support and impetus for the act to occur.

"Notwithstanding the culpability of the act of purchasing pesticide, the Accused's participation in a suicide pact renders him culpable under Section 107 IPC. 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. It is pertinent to mention that abetting as defined under Section 107 IPC is not limited to 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 offence, also constitutes abetment," the Court observed.

The judgment added :

"This Court is of the view that 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. In a suicide pact, it is implicit that each participant knows the intent of the other to commit the act knowing that their withdrawal from the pact will likely deter the other. Each party's resolve to commit the act is, therefore, reinforced and strengthened due to the participation of the other party. Suicide in a suicide pact is conditional upon mutual participation of the other. In other words, if not for the active participation of both the parties, the act would not occur. The law treats such conduct as abetment because the State has a fundamental interest in preserving life. Any assistance in ending life is treated as a crime against the State.

Consequently, this Court holds that the accused's conduct in entering into and acting upon the suicide pact falls squarely within all the three situations envisaged in Section 107 of the IPC. His participation directly facilitated the deceased's suicide. Notably, it is not his defence that the deceased was the dominant personality who pressured him into the pact. His culpability therefore stands established."

Evidence Of Poisoning Accepted

The Court rejected allegations of rape and manual strangulation raised by the deceased's mother, holding that medical and forensic evidence conclusively established death due to organophosphate poisoning.

Doctors at CARE Hospital testified that the deceased was conscious upon admission and stated that she had consumed pesticide. Forensic reports from the AP FSL and CFSL confirmed the presence of organophosphate poison. Expert committees, including one from AIIMS, ruled out strangulation and sexual assault.

The Court also accepted evidence that the accused had purchased “Nuvacron,” a highly toxic pesticide, on the evening of the incident. He was last seen with the deceased before both were admitted to hospital.

In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied even being admitted to hospital. The Court drew an adverse inference from this complete denial in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Suicide Pact Does Not Dilute Liability

Distinguishing earlier precedents relied upon by the defence, the Bench held that this was not a case of mere harassment or passive presence. The accused had purchased the pesticide, participated in the pact and failed to dissuade the deceased.

The law, the Court emphasised, treats such conduct as abetment because the State has a fundamental interest in preserving life. A suicide pact does not dilute criminal responsibility.

Dismissing the appeals, the Supreme Court 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 Sarojini Devi, mother of Prathyusha.