In Abatement of Suicide in Suicide Pact; Culpability is Mutual; SC Upholds The Conviction

While hearing a matter of a 'Suicide Pact' where both the deceased and accused decided for a mutual suicide thereby the accused was saved by the doctors but the deceased succcummed to the poison intake, the Supreme Court holds the accused's culpability and upholds his conviction.

Case Background: A tragic events from year 2002, involving a South Indian actress, Ms. Pratyusha, and an engineering student, Siddhartha Reddy. The couple, who had been in a long-term relationship, faced staunch opposition to their marriage from the appellant’s parents, culminating in a suicide threat from the appellant's mother. That evening, after meeting outside a beauty parlour, the pair made a suicide pact and consumed a highly toxic pesticide mixed with soft drinks in a mutual bid to end their lives.

Both were admitted to CARE Hospital, Hyderabad; Ms. Pratyusha succumbed to the poison the following day, while the appellant/accused survived after prolonged treatment. Subsequently the accussed was charged with Abatement to Suicide, murder and rape.

The matter became the focus of public attention and controversy following a televised interview by the autopsy surgeon, Dr. B. Muni Swamy, who prematurely claimed that the deceased had been gang-raped and murdered by manual strangulation. Following a High Court-monitored CBI investigation and subsequent trial, the appellant was convicted for abatement of suicide under Sections 306 (Section 108 BNS) and 309 (attempt to commit suicide) of the IPC.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh later upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence, prompting these cross-appeals to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court after analyzing the important ascpects of the case held that the theory of manual strangulation was medically unsustainable because the deceased was conscious, speaking, and exhibiting motor activity at the time of her hospital admission.

Furthermore, multiple witnesses confirmed the absence of typical strangulation marks or injuries associated with sexual assault. Forensic and DNA analysis by the AP FSL, CFSL, and CDFD consistently failed to detect semen or spermatozoa on the deceased's person, with the Court attributing a stray male DNA fraction to environmental contamination rather than the accused.

On the "Culpability in Mutual Suicide Pacts" the Apex Court observed the nature of a suicide pact under Section 107 IPC, and held that such a pact involves "mutual encouragement and reciprocal commitment," where the presence and participation of the survivor act as a direct catalyst for the deceased’s actions. Consequently, by purchasing the lethal pesticide and joining the deceased in the act, the appellant "intentionally aided" the suicide, satisfying the criteria for abetment.

Supreme Court reasoned that suicide in a pact is conditional upon the mutual participation of the other partner; the resolve of one is reinforced by the commitment of the other.

Taking the 'Adverse Inference' and Section 313 CrPC, the Apex Court took a dim view of the appellant’s total denial during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. Despite overwhelming evidence of their relationship and his admission to the hospital, the appellant denied both, offering no explanation for the purchase or consumption of the poison.

Relying on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that since these facts were within his exclusive knowledge, his failure to provide a credible explanation warranted an adverse inference against him.

The Apex Court condemned the actions and professional misconduct of the deceased's autopsy surgeon, Dr. B. Muni Swamy in giving a media interview before finalizing the postmortem report and termed it to be "medically unsound," "irresponsible," and a violation of the sub judice rule.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction for abetment of suicide while definitively ruling out allegations of sexual assault and homicidal violence. The Bench, comprising of Justice Manmohan and Justice Rajesh Bindal, emphasized that justice is served by evidence-based truth rather than public outrage or media-driven narratives.

Coram: Justice Manmohan and Justice Rajesh Bindal.