2026 Supreme(SC) 172

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAJESH BINDAL, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State C.B.I. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 457 of 2012 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 894-895 of 2012
Decided On : 17-02-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Abetment of suicide and attempt to commit suicide – If accused gave incorrect or false answers during course of his statement under Section 313 CrPC, court can draw adverse inference against him.
(2) Abetment of suicide – Suicide pact involves mutual encouragement and reciprocal commitment to die together – Survivor’s presence and participation acts as a direct catalyst for deceased’s actions.
(3) Administration of Justice – Justice is not served by following majority sentiment or public pressure – Justice is served by truth, established through evidence and impartial investigation.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306 and 309 read with Section 107 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Abetment of suicide and attempt to commit suicide – Conviction and sentence – Deceased lady was in love with accused – Allegation of homicidal death by manual strangulation is wholly unsustainable – Deceased was able to speak and exhibit motor activity demonstrates beyond doubt that strangulation was not the cause of death – Wealth of ocular and medical evidence points to poisoning – Three-member Expert Committee and AIIMS committee after careful examination of all relevant facts have concluded that it was a case of poisoning and not strangulation – Convergence of multiple independent expert opinions lends overwhelming credibility to conclusion that deceased died of poisoning – In light of deceased’s own statement, hospital records, forensic reports and expert opinions, allegations of rape or murder are devoid of legal or factual foundation – Since deceased is no more, it was for Appellant-Accused to explain circumstances in which poison was purchased and consumed – If accused gave incorrect or false answers during course of his statement under Section 313 CrPC, court can draw adverse inference against him – In present case, accused has not only failed to explain his conduct, in the manner in which every person of normal prudence would be expected to explain but had even given incorrect and false answers – Accused’s conduct in entering into and acting upon suicide pact falls squarely within all three situations envisaged in Section 107 of IPC – His participation directly facilitated deceased’s suicide – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 79, 83, 88, 98, 110, 119 and 120)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 107 and 306 – Abetment of suicide – Suicide pact involves mutual encouragement and reciprocal commitment to die together – Survivor’s presence and participation acts as a direct catalyst for deceased’s actions – 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 same is intentional and directly related to commission of offence, also constitutes abetment – It is reciprocal commitment of each party to commit suicide which provides necessary impetus/support to other to go through with the act – In a suicide pact, it is implicit that each participant knows intent of other to commit the act knowing that their withdrawal from the pact will likely deter other – Each party’s resolve to commit the act is reinforced and strengthened due to participation of other party – Suicide in a suicide pact is conditional upon mutual participation of other – If not for active participation of both parties, act would not occur – Law treats such conduct as abetment because State has a fundamental interest in preserving life – Any assistance in ending life is treated as a crime against State. (Paras 117 and 118)

(C) Criminal Law – Medical evidence – Impact of a Doctor issuing an erroneous postmortem report and publicising it through media goes far beyond individual misconduct – It spreads misinformation, erodes trust in investigative agencies and institutions such as police and judiciary, prejudices public opinion, traumatises victim’s family, and undermines 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 sub-judice rule, which restricts commentary on matters under judicial consideration to preserve fairness and integrity. (Para 104)

(D) Administration of Justice – 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 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 truth, not popularity – Their independence is not a luxury but foundation of justice itself. (Para 106)

Facts of the case:

Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision were filed against judgment dated 23rd February 2004 in Sessions Case No.88 of 2003, whereby Appellant-Accused was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fined Rs. 5,000/- under Section 306 IPC and one-year simple imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,000/- under Section 309 IPC. By way of Impugned Judgment, High Court reduced sentence for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC to two years but increased fine to Rs. 50,000/-.

Findings of Court:

Present Appeals being bereft of merits are dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Appellant is directed to surrender within four weeks.

Result : Appeals dismissed.