Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v State C.B.I., 2026

Prathyushya, a Telugu/Tamil actress, and Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy were in a romantic relationship opposed by Reddy’s parents.

Approximately 23 years ago, both allegedly consumed poison together, resulting in the death of Prathyushya, while Reddy survived.

Reddy was subsequently convicted of abetment to suicide and attempt to suicide and sentenced to five years, later reduced to two years by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2004.

Prathyushya’s mother, Sarojini Devi, challenged the reduction of Reddy’s sentence, alleging that her daughter had been raped and murdered by poisoning/strangulation.

During trial proceedings, the Court sought the postmortem report by Dr. B. Muni Swamy, who had indicated strangulation, but he was not examined in court.

Reddy challenged his conviction for abetment to suicide in the Supreme Court, seeking acquittal.

The Supreme Court granted bail to Reddy during the hearing.

Allegations of rape and murder by strangulation were central to the appeals.

The defense argued accidental consumption of poison, which was rejected by the lower courts.

The issue of premature publication of postmortem findings by Dr. Muni Swamy was raised.

The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals filed by Reddy and Sarojini Devi.

The Court ruled that Prathyushya’s death was caused by poisoning, not strangulation.

Allegations of rape were found to be unsupported by evidence and therefore rejected.

The defense of accidental consumption of poison was rejected, and abetment by purchase of neurontone was established.

Dr. Muni Swamy’s postmortem report was considered unprofessional and not examined during the trial, hence not admissible for proving murder.

The Court noted that premature publication of the postmortem report could have serious legal consequences.

The Court confirmed that a surviving partner in a mutual suicide pact is legally liable for abetment of suicide.

Reddy was directed to surrender within four weeks, and no order as to costs was made.

The Court relied heavily on ocular and medical evidence to determine the cause of death as poisoning.

It emphasized that unexamined or unprofessional postmortem reports cannot override established evidence.

The decision reinforces the legal principle that surviving partners in a mutual suicide pact are liable for abetment under Indian law.

The judgment clarifies that belated allegations of rape or murder without supporting evidence will not be entertained.

The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of postmortem reports and cautioned against premature publication.

The ruling contributes to the jurisprudence on mutual suicide, abetment liability, and evidence evaluation in criminal trials.