Couple attempting Suicide , The surviving partner in a suicide pact can be held guilty of abeting the suicide of the other, the Supreme Court said Tuesday (February 17, 2026) as it upheld the conviction of G. Siddhartha Reddy in the over two decades old death case of Kannada actress Pratyusha.
Reddy, then an engineering student, and Pratyusha were in a relationship for more than a decade but the former’s parents were opposed to them getting
Dejected, they decided to end their lives and consumed Nuvacron, a highly toxic pesticide. She passed away at the CARE Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, on February 24, 2002, but Reddy survived and was charged with abetment to suicide of Pratyusha.
On February 23, 2004, a Sessions Court convicted him for offences punishable under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 309 (attempt to commit suicide) IPC. The court also sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs 5,000/- under Section 306 IPC and 1 year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs 1,000/- under Section 309.
On appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence under Section 306 IPC to 2 years and increased the fine to Rs 50,000.
Reddy challenged this before the Supreme Court where a bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan upheld the HC decision and asked Reddy to surrender within four weeks.
Writing for the bench, Justice Manmohan 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 judge said, “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 judgement added, “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.”
The top court said that the “conduct” of the accused “in entering into and acting upon the suicide pact falls squarely within all the three situations envisaged in Section 107 (abetment of a thing) of the IPC. His participation directly facilitated the deceased’s suicide.” The court said that the accused had not taken the defence that Pratyusha was the dominant personality who pressured him into the pact and “his culpability therefore stands established.”
The court termed the accused’s contention that he consumed pesticide either accidentally or with intent to threaten family members as “implausible” and said that “as an engineering student, he was expected to understand the lethal nature of pesticide. There is no evidence to suggest that he mistook pesticide for a harmless substance. His defence is therefore rejected as unbelievable.”
