Back
RAJESH BINDAL, MANMOHAN
Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State C. B. I. – Respondent
यह सुप्रीम कोर्ट का निर्णय है जिसमें गुदिपल्ली सिद्धार्थ रेड्डी (आरोपी) को आईपीसी की धारा 306 (आत्महत्या के लिए उकसाना) और 309 (आत्महत्या का प्रयास) के अपराधों का दोषी ठहराया गया। हाईकोर्ट ने सजा को संशोधित किया था। (!) (!) [1][2]
मृतका प्रत्युषा एक अभिनेत्री थी और आरोपी इंजीनियरिंग छात्र। दोनों के बीच लगभग 10 वर्ष पुराना प्रेम संबंध था और विवाह की इच्छा थी, लेकिन आरोपी के माता-पिता विरोधी थे। 23 फरवरी 2002 को आरोपी ने मृतका को अपने माता-पिता के आत्महत्या के खतरे की सूचना दी। दोनों ब्यूटी पार्लर से रोते हुए आरोपी के कार में चले गए और अस्पताल पहुंचे जहां उन्होंने जहर (ऑर्गेनोफॉस्फेट युक्त नुवाक्रॉन) ग्रहण किया बताया। मृतका की मृत्यु हो गई, आरोपी बच गया। (!) [3][4][5][6]
पोस्टमार्टम में डॉ. बी. मुनि स्वामी ने मैनुअल स्ट्रैंगुलेशन (गले दबाने से मृत्यु) का मत दिया, लेकिन एपी एफएसएल रिपोर्ट में ऑर्गेनोफॉस्फेट जहर पाया गया। डॉ. मुनि स्वामी ने मीडिया को गैंगरेप का बयान दिया जो गलत साबित हुआ। (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
तीन सदस्यीय विशेषज्ञ समिति और एआईआईएमएस समिति ने चोटों को चिकित्सा उपचार से जोड़ा तथा जहर से मृत्यु की पुष्टि की। कोई स्ट्रैंगुलेशन या यौन हमले का प्रमाण नहीं। डीएनए में पुरुष डीएनए मिला लेकिन आरोपी या संदिग्धों से मेल नहीं खाया। (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
सीबीआई जांच में आरोपी ने नुवाक्रॉन (पीडब्ल्यू-34 से), चाकू, चॉकलेट खरीदी साबित हुई। दोनों ने संयुक्त आत्महत्या की योजना बनाई। मृतका ने डॉक्टर को जहर ग्रहण बताया। (!) (!) (!) (!)
कोर्ट ने स्ट्रैंगुलेशन/रेप नकारा, जहर से मृत्यु मानी। आरोपी ने जहर खरीदकर सहायता की, संयुक्त पैक्ट में भाग लिया। धारा 107 आईपीसी के तहत उकसाव/सहायता सिद्ध। आरोपी का 313 सीआरपीसी बयान झूठा। प्रतिकूल अनुमान। (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
अपीलें खारिज, आरोपी को 4 सप्ताह में समर्पण करने का आदेश। (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of criminal appeals challenging judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts regarding the relationship and events leading to the incident. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. details of the postmortem and forensic findings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. crisis leading to cbi involvement and investigation commencement. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. dna analysis indicating deceased’s biological materials and absence of semen. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. contradictory findings and medical expert opinions about the cause of death. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. prosecution's case and witness testimonies supporting poisoning. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 8. discussion on breastfeeding evidence to reinforce prosecution case. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 9. arguments from both sides regarding the evidence. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. conclusion on the appeal based on overall assessment of evidence. (Para 37) |
| 11. issues surrounding correct identification of the accused. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 12. arguments made about the nature of abetment and culpability. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 13. counterarguments addressing the prosecution's narrative. (Para 48 , 49) |
| 14. final thoughts on the implicat |
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law based solely on the language provided. There are no phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "disapproved," or similar indications of negative treatment in the descriptions. Therefore, no cases are identified as bad law at this stage.
Followed/Legal Validity and Treatment:
Gian Kaur: Surat Lal: Harbans Singh: Chandrabhushan: Dilbagh Singh: Lokendra Singh VS State Of Punjab: Raj Kumar: State Of Punjab: State Of Maharashtra: State Of H. P. : State Of M. P. - 1996 3 Supreme 1: Discusses the constitutionality of Sections 306 and 309 IPC and the right to die, providing a detailed legal reasoning. No indication of negative treatment; it appears to be a substantive legal judgment that is likely still valid.
Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2012 0 Supreme(SC) 369: Addresses the admissibility of extra confessional statements and procedural aspects in prosecution, suggesting a nuanced view rather than a negative treatment.
Umesh Chandra VS State of Uttarakhand - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 1190: Concerns the validity of TIP procedures, which is a procedural issue, with no indication of being overruled or criticized.
Amrik Singh VS State of Punjab - 2022 6 Supreme 433: Emphasizes the importance of TIP in FIR reflection, likely a procedural principle.
Girja Shankar Misra: Nathu Singh VS State Of U. P. - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 740: Clarifies that motive alone cannot prove conspiracy, a legal principle that is generally accepted.
MUNISH MUBAR VS STATE OF HARYANA - 2012 7 Supreme 405: Highlights the importance of motive and independent witnesses in circumstantial evidence, consistent with established principles.
State Of W. B. VS Mir Mohammad Omar - 2000 6 Supreme 172: Discusses the role of courts in investigation lapses and the burden of proof, framing procedural and evidentiary principles.
Patel Babubhai Manohardas VS State of Gujarat - 2025 3 Supreme 228: Explains the mens rea requirement for abetment of suicide, aligning with established criminal law principles.
Rajkumar VS State of M. P. - 2014 2 Supreme 371: Addresses the admissibility of child witness testimony and the importance of reliable evidence, consistent with procedural fairness.
Dana Yadav VS State Of Bihar - 2002 6 Supreme 508: Explores the reliability of identification in FIR and court, with no indication of negative treatment.
Abhinav Mohan Delkar VS State of Maharashtra - 2025 6 Supreme 557: Discusses factors influencing abetment of suicide, emphasizing individual predilections, consistent with legal understanding.
State Of W. B. VS Mir Mohammad Omar - 2000 6 Supreme 172: (also listed here) emphasizes the importance of proper investigation and the role of the court.
Uncertain or Ambiguous Treatment:
: The description discusses the legal validity of TIP and identification procedures but does not specify whether subsequent rulings have upheld or criticized it.
Patel Babubhai Manohardas VS State of Gujarat - 2025 3 Supreme 228: While it states the mens rea requirement, there is no indication of subsequent treatment or criticism.
Girja Shankar Misra: Nathu Singh VS State Of U. P. - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 740, MUNISH MUBAR VS STATE OF HARYANA - 2012 7 Supreme 405, Rajkumar VS State of M. P. - 2014 2 Supreme 371, Dana Yadav VS State Of Bihar - 2002 6 Supreme 508, Abhinav Mohan Delkar VS State of Maharashtra - 2025 6 Supreme 557: All these cases state legal principles without referencing subsequent treatment, so their current legal standing remains assumed as valid.
The case Amrik Singh VS State of Punjab - 2022 6 Supreme 433 and others do not specify whether they have been overruled or criticized in later jurisprudence.
All cases are presented with descriptions that do not explicitly indicate their treatment in subsequent rulings. Without further case law references or judicial citations, their treatment remains uncertain, but based on the language, they appear to be accepted principles rather than overruled or criticized cases.
(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.....
(1) Abetment of suicide – In order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence – It would also require an active act or direct act which led deceased ....
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence; mere suspicion or non-explanation of conduct is insufficient for establishing guilt.
A negative viscera report does not preclude liability for poisoning if other evidence establishes the accused's guilt.
The court affirmed conviction for abetment of suicide, emphasizing that clear evidence linking the accused's conduct to the victim's suicide is essential under Section 306 IPC.
Point of law : chemical analysis reveal existence of Endosulfan, an insecticide poison, in the viscera. Therefore, the medical evidence amply supports the case of the prosecution with regard to the c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
