Actress Pratyusha Death Case: Supreme Court Upholds Lover's Conviction Over Suicide Pact

The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of two years awarded to Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy by the Andhra Pradesh High Court for entering into a suicide pact with Pratyusha, the famous South Indian actress in 2002, in view of opposition of family members for their marriage, causing her death.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan has held that the surviving partner in a mutual suicide pact is legally culpable.

According to the prosecution, appellant, Reddy, an engineering student was known to the actress for 10 years. Both wanted to marry each other. But his mother opposed the marriage and threatened to commit suicide, if it materialized. Thus both decided to end their lives by consuming poison. The actress died in the hospital in Hyderabad but Reddy survived.

Examining the appeal, the bench 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. Abetting as defined under Section 107 IPC is not limited to physical act of supplying means to commit suicide.''

Court pointed out, any psychological assurance or instigation, as long as the same is intentional and directly related to the commission of offence, also constitutes abetment. "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,'' the bench said. 

The court emphasized, 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,'' the bench clarified.

Dismissing the appeal and directing the appellant to surrender within four weeks, the court also came down heavily upon Dr B Muni Swamy who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased on February 25, 2002 and told the media that she died of manual strangulation and that she was gang raped.

A medical board which was set up by AIIMS Delhi at the CBI's request found that the cause of death was Organophosphate poisoning and the external injuries were caused due to therapeutic procedures which were misinterpreted as injuries due to manual strangulation.

On this the bench said, ''Justice is not served by following majority sentiment or public pressure. Justice is served by truth, established through evidence and impartial investigation. While public outrage is understandable in high-profile cases, it should never dictate the course of inquiry. Investigations require careful collection of evidence, impartial analysis, and conclusions grounded in fact. Allowing public sentiment to shape outcomes risks miscarriages of justice. A society committed to fairness must recognise that investigators and courts serve the truth, not popularity. Their independence is not a luxury but the foundation of justice itself.''

The impact of a doctor issuing an erroneous postmortem report and publicising it through the media goes far beyond individual misconduct, the bench noted, adding that it spreads misinformation, erodes trust in investigative agencies and institutions such as the police and judiciary, prejudices public opinion, traumatises the victim’s family, and undermines the rule of law. "Such misconduct does not merely harm one case; it corrodes public trust in medicine, law, and governance, destabilising peace and harmony in society. It also violates the sub judice rule, which restricts commentary on matters under judicial consideration to preserve fairness and integrity," the bench said.

Case Title: Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy Vs State CBI

Bench: Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan

Date of Judgment: February 17, 2026