Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy vs. State C.B.I.

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 160

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 457 OF 2012

GUDIPALLI SIDDHARTHA REDDY .…. APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE C.B.I. ..…RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.894-895/2012

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J.
1. The present appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment and
th
order dated 28 December 2011 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 2004 and Criminal Revision Case No. 2055 of 2004,
whereby the criminal appeal filed by the Appellant-Accused and the criminal
revision filed by the mother of the deceased were dismissed. By way of the
Impugned Judgment, the High Court reduced the sentence for offence punishable
under Section 306 IPC to two years but increased the fine to ₹ 50,000/.
Signature Not Verified
2. It is pertinent to mention that the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2026.02.17
15:38:39 IST
Reason:
rd
were filed against the judgment dated 23 February 2004 in Sessions Case No.88
of 2003, whereby the Appellant-Accused was convicted for offences punishable
Page 1 of 60


under Sections 306 and 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and sentenced
to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fined ₹ 5,000/- under Section 306
IPC and one year simple imprisonment and fined ₹ 1,000/- under Section 309
IPC.
FACTS
3. The deceased Ms. Pratyusha was an actress, who had acted as a heroine in
a number of feature films in South India. The Appellant-Accused was an
engineering student. They had known each other close to a decade and wanted to
marry each other. Smt. Sarojini Devi (PW-1), mother of the deceased and
Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.894-895 of 2012 was initially opposed to the
marriage but had subsequently agreed to it. However, the parents of the
Appellant-Accused were opposed to the marriage and the mother of the
Appellant-Accused had even threatened to commit suicide in the event the
Appellant-Accused married the deceased.
rd
4. In the morning of 23 February 2002, the Appellant-Accused informed the
deceased of the threat of suicide extended by his mother. At around 5:00 PM, the
deceased along with her cousin Ms. Prafulla Sri (PW-2) went to a beauty parlour
as the deceased had been engaged for a Kannada feature film and had planned to
th
leave for Bangalore on the morning of 24 February 2002.
5. At the parlour, the deceased asked Ms. Prafulla Sri (PW-2) to call the
Appellant-Accused to the parlour. Upon his arrival, PW-2 talked to the Appellant-
Accused for a while and when the deceased came out of the parlour, the
Appellant-Accused and the deceased started crying and left together in the car of
the former.
6. Both the deceased and the Appellant-Accused were thereafter seen together

at CARE Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad (‘CARE Hospital) at around 7:30
or 8:00 PM. Both of them had consumed poison and were admitted in the said
th
hospital. The deceased could not survive and passed away the next day, i.e., 24
Page 2 of 60


February 2002. The Appellant-Accused, however, survived and was discharged
th
from the hospital on 09 March 2002.
7. Upon a complaint made by Sarojini Devi (PW-1), FIR No. 144 of 2002
th
dated 24 February 2002 was registered under Section 174 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”) at Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad.
th
8. On 25 February 2002 one Dr. B. Muni Swamy conducted the postmortem
examination of the deceased. Even though one Dr. Krupal Singh was the doctor
on duty at the mortuary, Dr. B. Muni Swamy, Professor, came to the mortuary on
his own and conducted postmortem of the deceased. This is surprising as
Dr.B.Muni Swamy was neither on duty at the mortuary nor on call duty as
Professor. Further, Dr. Rajgopal Reddy, HOD, Department of Forensic Medicine
informed the investigative agency subsequently that Dr. B. Muni Swamy did not
intimate or seek permission for conducting the postmortem. The postmortem
th
report dated 25 February 2002 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“CR No. 144/2002
PME No. 435/2002
25.02.2002 at 12:10 pm
25.02.2002 at 12:15 pm
4347 of Punjagutta P.S.

SCHEDULE OF OBSERVATIONS

Page 3 of 60

Injection mark over dorsum of right hand, near base of right thumb with
surrounding contusion of 20 ms. Old healed scars over front of both knees. Finger
tips and nails - cyanosed.
Injection mark over back of left hand, near base of left thumb.
Neck: Congestion present over the front of neck.
INJURIES: The following ante mortem injuries found on the body:
1. Abrasion over tip of nose 1.5 x 0.25 cms
2. Abrasion, 4 cms below right ear lobule, linear, with interruptions over right
side of neck, horizontally placed measuring 4 cm x 0.5 cms.
3. Abrasion, over right side of neck, 5 cms from angle of right mandiable and 5
cm below injury No.2, measuring 1 x 0.25 cms.
4. Abrasion, 1 x 0.5 cm, 2 cms outer to injury No. 3.
5. abrasion 2.5 x 0.25 cms over front of neck 2 cm from mid- line and 8 cms below
middle of ramus of mandiable on right side.
6. Abrasion, 0.5 x 0.5 cms, out to injury No. 5
7. abrasion, l x 0.5 cms, over front of neck, 3.5 cm above suprasternal notch and
inner end of left clavicle.
8. 3 pin head size, puncture wounds over outer part of front of right fore arm,
2cms above right wrist.
9. Multiple pin head size puncture wounds with surrounding contusion of 2cms
over outer part of front of left fore arm, 5cm above left wrist over an area of 3 X
2 cms.
Page 4 of 60


10. Abrasion, 8x4cms over inner end of left breast, 3cms from mid-line, vertical,
irregular (multidirections).
11. Abrasion, C-Shaped, extending from middle of outer part of left breast
downwards, below left nipple, 14cms (Multiple linear).
12. Injection marks, over both groins with blood stains around external genitilia.
13. On reflection of skin flap over neck, there is contusion over interns smace of
right side of neck, lower purt, with contusion of plastysma, corresponding to
injury No.5 & 6 and contusion of lower end of sterno-mustoid, right side.
B-Head & Neck

Page 5 of 60


E Specimen Removal or Chemical…

… concluded at 1-45 pm on 25.02.2002
Opinion as to the cause of death
Approximate time of death : Hospital death
DFSL Hyderabad
PRESSURE OVER THE NECK, ASPHYXIA DUE TO MANUAL
STRANGULATION, HOWEVER VISCERA PRESERVED FOR CHEMICAL
ANALYSIS TO DETECT POISON IF ANY, SEMEN COLLECTED FROM
VAGINA FOR GROUPING AND DNA FINGER PRINTING TEST.
Gandhi Hospital
25.02.2002
Sd/-
Dr. B. Muni Swamy
Dept. of Forensic Medicine
Gadhi Medical College,
Hyderabad”
(emphasis supplied)

9. It is to be noted here that Dr. B. Muni Swamy made his opinion public by
th
giving an interview on Teja TV on 25 February 2002, even before giving the
th
postmortem report to the SHO on 26 February 2002 and before receiving the AP
th
FSL report on 27 February 2002. In the interview Dr. B. Muni Swamy stated
that the deceased died of manual strangulation and that she was gang raped.
10. However, the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (“AP FSL”)
th
report dated 27 February 2002 revealed that organophosphate an insecticide
poison was found in the internal organs of the deceased and the stomach wash of
th
both the accused and the deceased. The AP FSL report dated 27 February 2002
is reproduced hereinunder:

Page 6 of 60


“DETAILS OF CASE PROPERTY RECEIVED
Received three sealed bottles and two sealed paper parcels, Paper parcel no. l
containing two unsealed plastic containers and paper parcel no. 2 containing one
unsealed plastic container.
A bottle labelled as "S . Pratyusha'' containing,
l. Piece of stomach and intestine in brownish turbid liquid marked as item no. l.
A bottle labelled as: "S. Pratyusha" containing,
2. Piece of liver and kidney in brownish turbid liquid marked as item no. 2,
A bottle labelled as “S. Pratyusha” containing,
3. Reddish turbid liquid marked as item no. 3
A paper parcel no. l containing,
A plastic container labelled as ''Pratyusha” containing
4. Brownish turbid liquid marked as item no. 4.
A plastic container labelled as "G. Siddarth Reddy" containing,
5. Whitish turbid liquid marked as item no. 5.
A paper parcel no. 2 containing,
6. An empty plastic container labelled as “Nuvacron" marked as item no. 6.

Nature of Examination/Tests conducted:
1. Physical Examination
2. Chemical Tests
REPORT
The above items 1 to 6 are analysed and Organophosphate an insecticide poison
is found in all of them.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
Examination of case property in Cr No. 144/2022 of Panjagutta PS-Report
furnished-Reg.
Your Lr Cr No 144/ACP-PG/2022, Dt-27.02.2022
OF CASE PROPERTY RECEIVED
Received four sealed paper parcels and two sealed bottles.
A bottle labelled as “Kumari S. Prathyusha” marked as Item no.1 contained,
1. Cotton swab.

A bottle labelled as “G. Siddarth Reddy” marked as item no.2 contained,
2. Reddish turbid liquid.
A paper parcel contained, a card board box contained,
Page 7 of 60


3. A white colour mill made underwear labeled as Jockey marked as item

no.3.
A paper parcel contained, a card board box contained,
4. A black colour cotton full sleeved shirt without collar and labeled as
“Colour Plus two ply fabric” Men’s’ Wear “S” marked as item no.4
5. A blue jeans pant labelled as “Levi Strauss & Co.” marked as item no.5.
A paper parcel contained, a card board box contained,
6. A pair of black colour socks marked as item no.6.
A paper parcel contained, a card board box contained,
7. A light green, white and grey colour design cotton kurta with dark brown
stains marked as item no.7.
8. A white colour cotton pyjama with light green colour dots marked as item
no.8.

Nature of examination:
•
Biochemical, Immunological tests and
•
Microscopic Examination

REPORT

The above items nos. 1, 3 to 8 are examined.
Human blood is detected on item no.7.
Blood group of blood stains on item nos. 7 is ‘B’ group.
Blood is not detected on item nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8.
Semen and spermatozoa are not detected on item nos., 1, 3 to 8.”
(emphasis supplied)
th
11. Even after the receipt of the AP FSL report dated 27 February 2002,
Dr. B. Muni Swamy stuck to his opinion that the death was due to manual
strangulation and that sexual assault could not be ruled out.
12. In view of the difference of opinion regarding the cause of death and the
public outcry caused due to the sensation created by the interview given by
Dr. B. Muni Swamy, the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Rt. No. 174
th
dated 05 March 2002, constituted a three-member Expert Committee
comprising Dr. M. Narayana Reddy (PW-31), Dr. P. Vijaya Kumar and Dr. K.
Sathyavathi to conduct an enquiry and submit a report.
13. The three-member Expert Committee gave its findings vide report dated
th
09 March 2002 stating the following:
Page 8 of 60


“EXPERT COMMITTEE REPORT
Sub: Expert Committee Report regarding the cause of death of Late Miss.
Prathyusha- Regarding.
Ref: G.O. Rt. No.174, HM & FW (NI) Dept. Dated. 05-03-2002 to conduct enquiry
into the cause of death of Late Miss. Prathyusha.
----- ----- ------
The members of the' Expert Committee met on 09-03-2002 in the Department of
Forensic Medicine, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, and examined in
detail the following documents:
1.Copy or the Inquest Report in Cr.No.144/2002, Dated 25-02-2002 of PS.
Pujjagutta.
2.Copy of the P.M.E. Report No.435/2002 Dated 25-02-2022 on the body of the
deceased Samala Prathyusha, Aged about 20 Years issued by Dr. B
Muniswamy, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College,
Hyderabad.
3.Copies of the Reports of the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratories, bearing File
Nos.TOX/929/2002 Dated 27-02-2002 and SER/202/2002, Dated. 27-02-2002.
4.Photos of the deceased taken at the time of: Postmortem Examination.
5.Copy of the in-patient case sheet of Care Hospital, Hyderabad, in relation to
Samala Prathyusha.
After careful. examination of the documents, cited, the following facts have
been obtained:
1. INQUEST REPORT:
The Inquest Report was conducted in the presence of Smt. S. Sarojini Devi, the
mother of the deceased, and others . According to the Inquest Report it is a case
of death due to consumption of Organophosphorus Poison .
2. POSTMORTEM REPORT, PHOTOS AND CASE SHEET:
The 13 injuries mentioned in the P.M.E. Report were analysed in comparison with
the Photos and the Case Sheet .
INJURY NO.1; On the left side of the tip of the nose – noted in the P.M.E. Report
as abrasion of 1.5 x 0.25 cms.
These could be due to the pressure by the Ryles Tube or the pressure caused due
to the application of Plaster to keep the tube in position.
INJURY No:2: Over the lower border of the lower jaw on right side – described
in the P.M.E. Report as horizontally placed interrupted abrasion of 4 x 0.05 cms.
It could be due to the pressure mark by the application of Plaster to fix the
Endotracheal tube in position.
INJURY Nos. 3 & 4: On the right side of the neck – described in the P.M.E. Report
as abrasions of 1x0.25 cm and 1x 0.5 cm. respectively.
Page 9 of 60


These could be the suture marks made to keep the central venous catheter in
position.
INJURY NO: 5: On the front of the lower part of right side of the neck-
mentioned in the P.M.E. report as abrasion of 2.5x0.25 cm.
This could be the pressure mark caused either due to the finger pressure while
introducing the catheter into the internal jugular vein, to keep the caroted artery
away or the pressure mark caused while applying the Plaster to keep the catheter
in position.
INJURY NO.6: By the right side of the injury No.5 – described in the P.M.E.
Report as abrasion of 0.5 x 0.5 cm.
It could be the entry site of central venous catheter.
INJURY NO.7: Over the inner end of left collar bone – described in the P.M.E.
Report as abrasion of 1 x 0.5 cm.
These could be the pressure mark due to the application of the Plaster to
maintained the central venous catheter in position.
INJURY NO.8: On the front of right wrist – mentioned in the P.M.E. Report as
three pin head sized puncture wounds.
These could be the puncture marks caused to obtain arterial blood for analysis.
INJURY NO:9: On the front of lower part of left forearm – mentioned in the P.M.E.
Report as multiple pin head size puncture wounds.
These could be the puncture marks caused to obtained arterial blood for analysis.
INJURY NOs.10 & 11: On the front of left side of the chest - mentioned in the
P.ME. Report as abrasions.
These could be the superficial burns marks caused by the heated edges of the
paddles while giving the D.C. Shocks.
INJURY NO:12: Over the groins – Described in the P.M.E. Report as Injection
marks.
These could be the marks caused due to introduction of catheters into the femoral
arteries.
INJURY NO:13: Internal injury – Described as contusion of the lower end of
sterno-mastoid muscle, corresponding to injury Nos. 5 & 6 in the P.M.E. Report.
As per the P.M.E. Report the Stomach contained 150 ml of yellowish brown
liquid of thick consistency. Mucosa of the Stomach was congested and abnormal
odour was present.
Brain, Lungs, Liver, Pancreas, Spleen, Kidneys and Addrenals were congested.
Hyoid bone, Cricoid cartilage, and thyroid cartilage were intact.
Nothing abnormal was noted in the Genital Organs.



Page 10 of 60


3. REPORTS OF THE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORIES:
On Chemical Analysis Organophosphate Poison was found in the Internal
Organs.
Semen and Spermatozoa were not detected from the Cotton Swabs.
OPINION REGARDING THE CAUSE OF DEATH EXPRESSED IN THE P.M.E.
REPORT BY THE DOCTOR WHO CONDUCTED THE P.M. EXAMIATION.
1. Pressure over the Neck, Asphyxia due to manual strangulation.
2. Viscera preserved for Chemical Analysis to detect poison, if any.
3. Semen collected from Vagina for grouping and D.N.A. Finger Printing
Test.
VIEW OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE ABOVE OPINION
1. No signs of death due to manual strangulation were noted in the

Postmortem Report. On the contrary there is evidence that she was under
treatment from 8-00 p.m. of 23-02-2002 to 11-45 P.M. of 24-02-2002, for
Organophospate Poisoning.
2. The Postmortem signs such as the congestion of the mucus membrane
of the Stomach and the presence of abnormal odour in the contents of the
Stomach are consistent with that of death due to “POISONING”.
3. In the opinion column it has been stated that the Semen was collected
from the Vagina. It is not possible to identify from the naked eye examination
whether the fluid collected from the Vagina is Semen or Vaginal secretion. It
can be known as the Semen only on the Laboratory Examination.

OPINION OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE:
1. The cause of death is due to Organophospate Poisoning.
2. There is no evidence of death due to manual Strangulation.
3. There is no evidence of sexual assault prior to her death.
NOTE:
It appears that the Doctor, who conducted the P.M. Examination misinterpreted
the therapeutic injuries as the injuries caused by violence. The Doctor should
have exercised restraint before expressing the opinion, contrary to the Inquest
Report. He should have asked the Police to produce the copy of the hospital
treatment case sheet and should have perused it before expressing his opinion.
Medical technology is advancing every day. There should be inter-disciplinary
interaction programme to update the knowledge to prevent the difficulties caused
by the gap in the knowledge.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. K. SATHYAVATHI) (DR. P. VIJAYA KUMAR) (DR. M. NARAYAN REDDY)
MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER/CONVENOR

xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx
(emphasis supplied)
Sir,
Sub: Opinion of the Expert Committee regarding the death of Late Miss.
Prathyusha in Cr. No.144/2002 of PS. Punjagutta-Submitted – Regarding.
Page 11 of 60


Ref: G.O. Rt. No.174, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (N1) Department,
Dated. 05-03-2002.
--- --- ---
With reference to the subject cited above the Members of the Expert Committee
constituted by the Government through the reference cited above met in the
Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania General Hospital, on 09-03-2002 and
examined the relevant documents. The report of the Expert Committee, prepared
after perusing the documents including the Photographs of the deceased, taken at
the time of Postmortem Examination at the Mortuary of Gandhi General Hospital,
Secunderabad, is herewith submitted.

In this case the deceased was admitted with the complaint of consumption of
Poison and was treated for Organophosphorus Poisoning in the hospital from
8-00 PM on 23-02-2002 to 11-45 a.m. on 24-02-02, i.e. for 15 hours 45 minutes.
At the time of admission she was conscious and coherent. This itself rules out the
cause of death as that of “PRESSURE OVER THE NECK, ASPHYXIA DUE TO
MANUAL STRANGULATION”.
At the time of Postmortem Examination, the Doctor who conduct the P.M.
Examination, did not find any bite marks on the lips, cheeks, neck or breast that
are expected to be found in case of sexual assault. He also did not find any
scratches caused by the finger nails.
He did not notice any injuries on the genital organs around the genital organs, to
indicate that it was a cause of Rape. He did not note any finding in his report
proper (except) in the opinion column) that indicates that she had sexual
intercourse prior to her death.
He also did not note any signs of Asphyxia in the face, to indicate that it was a
case of death due to Manual Strangulation.
Either at the time of admission on 23-02-2002 or at the time of declaring the death
on 24-02-2002 or at the time of conduction of the Inquest on 25-02-2002, there
was no reason to suspect that it was a case of Rape. When she was under treatment
in the hospital, her clothes were removed to facilitate the treatment. The clothes
are generally removed in the critical care units by cutting them, as the patient
cannot be turned around to remove the clothes when the treatment is on. As there
was no indication of Rape, the police did not feel it necessary to collect the clothes
for any examination that is helpful in the investigation of the case. There is
nothing unusual in the disposal of these torn clothes.
As per the Inquest Report at the time of the conduction of inquest the mother of
the deceased and four other persons were present as eye witnesses. The inquest
conducted in their presence clearly states that it was a case of death due to
Organophosphorus Poisoning.
This is for your information.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(DR. M.N. NARAYANA REDDY)
Professor & Head
Dept. of Forensic Medicine,
Osmania Medical College.”
Page 12 of 60



14. Due to the interview given by Dr. B. Muni Swamy in a matter pending
investigation regarding the cause of death of an actress and finding of sexual
assault and the controversy arising therefrom, public interest litigations being
Writ Petitions Nos. 4054 and 4329 of 2002 were filed before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh seeking an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation
(“CBI”).
th
15. Pertinently, Dr. B. Muni Swamy in his affidavit dated 20 March 2002 filed
before the High Court wrongly represented that there was swelling of the neck of
the deceased and that there were injuries on the back of the thighs even though
th
he had not mentioned these injuries in his postmortem report dated 25 February
2002.
16. The investigation was entrusted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to

st
the CBI vide order dated 21 March 2002 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 4054 and
4329 of 2002.
th
17. Accordingly, CBI registered an FIR dated 28 March 2002 in Crime
No.RC-1/S/2002/CBI/SCB/Chennai for offences punishable under Section 302
IPC.
th
18. On 26 March 2002, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the
Director, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (“CDFD”) to conduct
a DNA test on the basis of swabs collected from APFSL and submit a report to
the Court.
19. Accordingly, DNA tests were conducted on the basis of cotton swab
collected from AP FSL and the samples submitted by the mother of the deceased
and Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.894-895 of 2012. Pertinently, the report
th
dated 24 April 2002 revealed that cotton swab contained two fractions of DNA
i.e. female fraction and male fraction. The female fraction matched with the DNA
of the mother of the deceased and Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.894-895 of
2012. However, to ascertain the source of the male fraction, samples were taken
from the Appellant-Accused herein and five other individuals known to the
Page 13 of 60


Appellant-Accused. Upon examination, none of the samples which were taken
from the Appellant-Accused and five other individuals matched with the male
fraction of the DNA found on the cotton swab. The relevant portions of the CDFD
th th th
reports dated 5 April 2002, 24 April 2002 and 13 May 2002 are reproduced
hereinbelow: -
th
A. Report dated 5 April 2002
“The Hon’ble Registrar
(Judicial),
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh
At Hyderabad

Sub: Submission of DNA typing report in Cr. No.144/2002 of Panjagutta PS-

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

RESULT OF EXAMINATION & CONCLUSION

On comparison of the DNA fingerprints of the source of exhibit B (part of pieces
of presumed stomach and intestine), exhibit C (part of pieces of liver and kidney)
and exhibit D {part of reddish turbid liquid (blood)} with the DNA fingerprint of
the source of exhibit E (blood sample of Smt P Sarojini Devi), it is concluded
beyond any reasonable doubt that:-
1) the source of exhibit B (part of pieces presumed to be stomach and

intestine), is that of biological child of the source of exhibit E (Smt P Sarojini
Devi);
2) The sources of exhibit C (part of pieces of liver and kidney) is not that
of the of the biological child of the source of exhibit E (Smt P Sarojini Devi);
3) The sources of exhibit D (part of reddish turbid liquid (blood)) is not that
of the biological child of the source of exhibit E (Smt P Sarojini Devi);
Page 14 of 60


4) The sources of exhibits C and D i.e. parts of liver, kidney and reddish

turbid liquid (blood) is that of one single human individual who is not
biologically related to the source of exhibit E i.e., Smt P Sarojini Devi;

The photograph of the results will be submitted along with the report of the source
of exhibit A i.e., part of the cotton swab on or before 26.04.2002. The absence of
the photograph in this report does not affect the conclusions in any manner.

sd/-
Dr. G.V. Rao,
Examining Scientist”
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
th
B . Report dated 24 April 2002

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial),
High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh
at Hyderabad
Hyderabad

Sub: Submission of further DNA typing report in Cr. No.144/2002 of Panjagutta
PS- Regarding.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

RESULT OF EXAMINATION & CONCLUSION

On comparison of the DNA fingerprints of the source of exhibit A (part of cotton
swab) which contained two fractions i.e. female fraction and male fraction, with
the DNA fingerprint of the source of exhibit E (blood sample of Mrs P Sarojini
Devi), it is concluded beyond reasonable doubt that:-

1) the source of exhibit A (part of cotton swab) contains DNA of a female

human individual who is the biological child of the source of exhibit E (Mrs P
Sarojini Devi);

2) the male fraction of the source of exhibit A (part of cotton swab)
contained DNA of a human male individual;

Page 15 of 60


3) the male fraction of the source of exhibit A (part of cotton swab) is not

biologically related to the sources of exhibits B, C and D as mentioned in our
earlier report bearing No. LS/DNA-FP/2002-1079 dated 05.04.2002.

sd/-
Dr. G.V. Rao,
Examining Scientist

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

th
C. Report dated 13 May 2002

RESULT OF EXAMINATION
On comparison, the DNA fingerprint for the male fraction of the source of exhibit
A (part of cotton swab) does not match with the DNA fingerprints of the sources
of exhibits G to L (blood samples of the suspects). Therefore, sources of exhibits
Page 16 of 60


G to L (suspects) can be excluded from being responsible for the biological fluid,
present on the source of exhibit A (part of cotton swab).

The photograph of the results will be submitted later. The absence of the
photograph does not affect the results in any manner.

CONCLUSION
The above test (STR analysis) is sufficient to conclude that the sources of
exhibits G to L (Mr Gudipally Siddhartha Reddy, Mr Mulamalla Suraj Reddy,
Mr Komirishetty Bhaskar, Mr Vishwanatham Nishanth, Mr Grandhi Raghav
and Mr Kalakuntla Ranga Rao) are not the sources of the biological fluid
present on the source of exhibit A (part of cotton swab).

Sd/-
Dr. G.V. Rao
Examining Scientist”
(emphasis supplied)

th
20. The CBI vide its letter dated 19 April 2002 (Ex. P-55) sought expert
opinion from the Department of Forensic Medicine, All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (“AIIMS”) New Delhi, inter alia, as to the exact cause of death and the
th
finding of manual strangulation in the postmortem report dated 25 February
2002.
21. Accordingly, a Committee of doctors was constituted by AIIMS which
nd
gave its report dated 02 May 2002. The Committee, inter alia, opined that the
cause of death of deceased was Organophosphate poisoning and the external
injuries were caused due to therapeutic procedures which were misinterpreted as
th
injuries due to manual strangulation in the postmortem report dated 25 February
2002 prepared by Dr. B. Muni Swamy. The AIIMS Committee of doctors further
opined that the substance mentioned in the postmortem report as semen could
nd
have been a natural secretion. The relevant portion of the report dated 02 May
2002 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“Q1. Exact cause of Death
Ans. After perusal of all the documents and photographs forwarded to us, we
are of the considered opinion that the cause of death of the deceased Miss S.
Pratyusha was Organophosphorus poisoning.

Q 2. Whether all the injuries seen in the photographs relate to the treatment and
can be explained by the case records. Whether the type and nature of injuries are
recorded correctly in the column of injuries in the PM report.
Page 17 of 60


Ans. On examination of all documents numbered Annexure A - K a co-relation
between the clinical notes, record of therapeutic procedures carried out, injuries
observed on PM Examination and photographs (numbered 1/23 to 23/23) was
prepared to clarify the origin of the injuries, which is as under :-

Page 18 of 60


Q 3. Whether the treatment given by the hospital was proper.
Ans. According to the Case record No 2207 of Care Hospital the deceased Miss S
Pratyusha was diagnosed and managed as a case of Organo-phosphorus
poisoning. The management of the patient as evident from the Medical Records
made available (Annexure B) was appropriate and along conventional lines and
hence may be regarded as proper.

Q 4. Whether the observations noted in the PME report are indicative of manual
strangulation and whether opinion given in the PME report is based on proper
analysis..
Ans . Considering all the documents provided the Observations recorded in PM
report no 434/2002 dated 25.2.2002 do not appear to be indicative of manual
strangulation. The congestion in the Brain and abdominal organs is also
observed in cases of Organophosphorus poisoning. The Opinion given in the
PME Report appears to be based on a misinterpretation of injuries produced by
therapeutic procedures.

Q.5 Whether there was any sexual assault in this case.
Ans. The PM Report no.434/2022 (Annexure E), APFSL report no.
SER/202/2002 dated 27.2.20202 (Annexure-I) and photographs (Annexure-F) do
not indicate any evidence of sexual assault in this case.

Q6, As the opinions given in this case by the hospital authorities and the expert
committee are in contradiction with the opinion of the doctor who conducted the
PM, whose opinion is wrong and whether such a wrong opinion was given by the
concerned doctor/doctors by deliberately twisting the facts or was it due to
professional negligence or was it a genuine bonafide mistake, which can occur m
such a case?
Ans. Usually opinion given by the treating physician is based on the clinical
examination, observations and diagnostic tests etc. The Expert committee has
formulated its opinion based on the medical records, PM Report, photographs,
and AFSL report. The above are consistent with the opinion that the cause of
death in this case was Organophosphorus poisoning. The Doctor who has
conducted the Post Mortem examination seems to have misinterpreted the
findings to conclude that the cause of death was Manual Strangulation. It
appears to have been an error of judgement on the part of the Autopsy Surgeon.

Q 7. The Doctor who conducted the PM has filed an affidavit in the High Court
regarding the injuries. In your opinion, whether the observations by the said
Doctor about the injuries are correct?
Ans. The Observations made by the Autopsy Surgeon do not appear to be
correct.

Q 8. What is the minimum quantity of Organo-phosphorus poison that can cause
death?
Ans. The minimum fatal dose of Organo-phosphorus compounds varies depending
on the chemical nature of the exact compound. It varies from 25 mg orally for
TEPP to :75 mg for Parathion. Refer Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology,
twenty second edition page 87(copy enclosed). Monocrotophos in listed among
the Highly toxic Organophosphorus compounds. Refer Medical Toxicology-
Diagnosis & Treatment of Human Poisoning 1988 Edn, page 1072 (copy
Page 19 of 60


enclosed). The fatal dose of Monocrotophos is 120 mg. Refer Pesticide News of
Pan -UK page 2 (copy enclosed).

Q9. Time required for reaction to occur after consumption
Ans. In cases of Organophosphorus poisoning the symptoms begin in half an
hour. Refer Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, twenty second edition
page 87 (copy enclosed).

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Maj. Abhijit Rudra Lt. Col. Ravi Rautji Dr. D N Bhardwaj
Junior Resident Junior Resident Associate Professor”
(emphasis supplied)


22. Meanwhile, the internal organs of the deceased, the stomach wash of both
the deceased and the Appellant-Accused and a bottle labeled ‘Nuvacron’ were
sent for forensic examination to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (“CFSL”),
th th
which gave two reports dated 16 May, 2002 and 20 May, 2002.
th
23. A perusal of the report dated 16 May 2002 reveals that Monocrotophos,
an organo-phosphorous insecticide was detected in the internal organs of the
deceased and in the bottle labeled as ‘Nuvacron’. However, Monocrotophos an
organo-phosphorous insecticide was not found in the stomach wash of the
th
Appellant-Accused and the deceased. In another report dated 20 May 2002
submitted by CFSL, it was stated that no semen could be detected on the portion
of cotton swab or the cloth belonging to the deceased. The relevant portion of the
th th
reports dated 16 May 2002 and 20 May 2002 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
th
A. Report dated 16 May 2002

Page 20 of 60

9. Condition of seal(s)/Parcel(s): Intact and tallied with the specimen seal impression
10. Purpose of reference: For Chemical Examination & Report
11. Dates of Examination: 29.4.2002 to 16.5.2002
RESULT OF EXAMINATION / REPORT
With reference of sampling procedure etc. Use separate sheets if necessary.
The exhibits were analysed by Physico-chemical and chromatographic
techniques. Based on the observation the results thus obtained are given below.
1. Monocrotophos an organo-phosphorous insecticide has been detected in
Exhibit-2.
2. Monocotophos an organo-phosphorous insecticide has been detected in

Exhibit 1a, 1b, 1c and 1f.
3. Monocrotophos an organo-phosphorous insecticide could not be detected in

Exhibit-1d and 1e.
th
B. Report dated 20 May 2002
DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCEL (S)
Parcel-I: One sealed cloth parcel marked 'Item No. 1: SER/202/2002' containing
exhibit l, kept in an injection vial.
Exhibit-I: One pale yellowish cotton wool described as, “A portion of cotton
swab”.
Parcel-2: One sealed paper parcel marked ‘Item No.: SER/202/2002 (B)’
containing exhibit 2, kept in a cardboard box.
Exhibit-2: One black colour polyester self design cloth piece attached to a white
cloth and cotton piece.

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
On the basis of biological examination carried out in the laboratory, following
results have been obtained:
1. Semen could not be detected on exhibits 1 and 2 .
Note: Remnants of the exhibits have been sealed with the seals of GDG PSO (Bio)
CFSL, CBI, NEW DELHI.

Sd/-
20.5.2022


(DR. G.D. GUPTA)
Principal Scientific Officer (Biology)-cum-
Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Govt. of India
CFSL, CBI, New Delhi.”
(emphasis supplied)
Page 21 of 60



24. During the time the High Court was monitoring the investigation, CBI
submitted three status reports. The relevant portion of one of the status reports
th
dated 25 July 2002 filed by CBI is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“……During her treatment, she passed urine and motion on the bed and various
tubes were placed on her body and so the clothes had to be removed by cutting
them. The dirty clothes were later put in the dust bin which was in the room next
to the ICCU (Next day the dust bin was cleared into the municipal bin). This has
been confirmed by nurses Tushara Jose, Sashi Kumari and Anitha, ayah of Care
Hospital. The whole body of Prathyusha including private parts was cleaned by
the Ayah. The above cited witnesses clearly indicated that there were no injuries
on her body. This was also confirmed by Doctors Kalyanasundaram and Sarat
Chandra Thalluri. During the treatment a urinary catheter smeared with jelly
"Xylocaine" was inserted into the urinary tract for passing the urine. The said
jelly is colourless and on drying it becomes white in colour and acts as lubricant
and anaesthesia

During the treatment, attempts were made to place the catheter and I.V. line on
both the wrists (radial artery) and on both sides of the groin (femeral artery) for
treatment. Documents further revealed that around 1.00 a.m. on 24.02.2002 the
Central Venous Catheter was inserted on the right side of Prathyusha's neck to
measure her BP since the peripheral veins had collapsed. To secure this catheter,
an incision was made to insert the same and two sutures for holding the catheter
in place. This was done by Dr. Sarat Chandra Thalluri and confirmed by doctors
Kalyanasundaram and Lakshmi Kanthaiah. In the early morning of 24.02.02
Prathyusha's condition improved, but suddenly deteriorated at around 10.30 a.m.
The Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation was carried out since a cardiac arrest was
suspected. Around 10.45 a.m. three cycles of DC shock was given for reviving her
for which two electric pads were placed around the left breast of the patient. This
was revealed by Dr. Muralidhar, anaesthetist of Care Hospital but all efforts to
revive her failed and at 11.45 a.m. Prathyusha was declared dead.

The condition of Siddharth Reddy also deteriorated around 11.00 p.m. on
23.02.02 and he was shifted to the ICCU and put on ventilator. His condition
stabilised only on 03.03.02 and only thereafter his statement was recorded by a
Magistrate as stated earlier. On 09.03.02 he was discharged from the hospital
and arrested by the CID of AP police. He was released from judicial custody on
28.06.02 on the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Investigation revealed that Sarojini Devi, mother of Prathyusha filed a complaint
in Panjagutta PS at 3.00 p.m. on 24.02.02. In her complaint she stated that
Siddartha Reddy and Prathyusha were in love and the parents of the boy were not
agreeable for their marriage. Further she stated that her daughter received a
phone call on the previous day from Siddartha Reddy and was informed that his
mother threatened to kill herself if he married Prathyusha. In the evening she went
to a Beauty Parlour where she might have met Siddartha Reddy. Around 7'0 clock
she was informed by Prathyusha that Siddarth was with her and that she was
coming back home. Later at 8.30 p.m she received the call from Care Hospital
Page 22 of 60


stating that her daughter had consumed poison and she was admitted there. Based
on this complaint Cr. No: 144/02 was registered u/s. 174 Cr.PC by the said PS.

…. Even though Dr. Krupal Singh was the duty doctor at the mortuary, Dr. B.
Muniswamy, Professor came to the mortuary on his own and conducted
postmortem. The duty roster revealed that Dr. Muniswamy was neither on duty
at the mortuary nor on call duty as Professor. This was revealed by Dr. Rajgopal
Reddy, HOD, Department of Forensic Medicine, who stated that Dr.
Muniswamy did not intimate or sought permission for conducting the
postmortem.

SI Chungi, had explained to the two doctors that it was a case of poisoning and
suicide. He also summoned a photographer and twenty one photographs were
taken as per the directions of Dr. Muniswamy. This is corroborated by Sheikh Aziz
Hussain, who further stated that on 26.02.02 he gave one set of photographs to
Dr. Muniswamy and another set alongwith negatives to Panjagutta PS. The
postmortem report No. 434/2002 dated 26/2/2002 revealed that there were 13
injuries and death, was caused due to pressure over the neck, asphyxia due to
manual strangulation. Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis to detect
poison, if any, and 'semen collected from vagina for grouping and DNA finger
printing test'. The report was signed by Dr. B. Muniswamy and Dr. Krupal Singh.

Dr. Krupal Singh a Post Graduate student during his examination stated that
he did not agree with the findings of Dr. Muniswamy even though he signed the
postmortem report . The viscera and the vaginal cotton swabs of Prathyusha were
sent to Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory on 27.02.2002 and their
reports revealed that the viscera contained organophosphate, an insecticide
poison. They also stated that the said poison was found in the stomach wash of
Prathyusha and Siddharth Reddy and in the empty container recovered from the
Pick n Move' lane (these were obtained from Care Hospital). The APFSL also
opined that no semen and spermatozoa were detected in the cotton swab, in the
clothes of Siddharth Reddy and in the clothes of Prathyusha worn by her at the
time of postmortem.

On 25.02.02 after the postmortem examination, Dr. Muniswamy gave an
interview on Teja T.V. stating that Prathyusha died of manual strangulation
and that she was gang raped, even though he gave the PME report to SHO
Panjagutta only on 26/02/2002 . This was followed by a press statement issued by
the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad wherein the finding of the PME report
was revealed. On 27.02.02 the Director of APFSL Dr. KPC Gandhi told the media
that Prathyusha died of poisoning and that it could be a suicide. This was followed
by a press statement by the DGP confirming the same.

After receipt of the APFSL reports and a copy of the case sheet relating to
Prathyusha, Dr. Muniswamy's final opinion dated 13.03.02 revealed 'Pressure
over the neck, asphyxia due to manual strangulation. The chemical analysis report
of FSL revealed presence of organo phosphate insecticide poison present. Death
uncertain. Presence of semen and photographic evidence (rape) sexual assault
cannot be ruled out'. It can be seen that Dr. Muniswamy in his T.V. interview
stated that it was a gang rape and in his final opinion stated that rape / sexual
assault cannot be ruled out.
Page 23 of 60



In view of the contradictory opinions, a committee was formed by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh who opined that Prathyusha died of poisoning
and that there was no evidence of manual strangulation or sexual assault. They
also opined that the injuries found on the body of Prathyusha were caused
during treatment at the Care Hospital.

During CBI investigation, opinion was also sought from a committee of doctors
at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, (AIIMS) New Delhi who also
confirmed the findings of the earlier committee…

The CBI also sent the viscera and the cotton swabs (already used by APFSL) of
Prathyusha to Central Forensic Science Laboratories and they confirmed the
presence of monochrotophos (one of the substances in the chemical family of
organophosphate) in the viscera. The CFSL however, did not detect poison in the
stomach wash of the above two persons. It was ascertained later that only traces
were available which were insufficient, for carrying out the tests. The CFSL also
opined that no semen was present in the cotton swabs of Prathyusha.

In view of some doubts about the genuineness of the vaginal swabs and viscera of
the deceased which were reported to be in the custody of APFSL the Hon'ble High
Court felt it appropriate to get a DNA test done. The APFSL accordingly sent the
samples for the said tests to the Centre for DNA Finger Printing and Diagnostics
(CDFD) Hyderabad. The CDFD opined that the stomach and intestine were that
of Prathyusha while the kidney / liver and blood did not belong to her and it was
that of a male individual. CBI investigation was then directed, to check the source
of the said blood and kidney/liver. Enquiries were conducted at APFSL and
Gandhi Medical College mortuary to ascertain the source of mix-up. However
this could not be identified. The viscera of one Devji (male) whose postmortem
was conducted just prior to that of Prathyusha was also sent to CDFD to ascertain
whether it was biologically related to the viscera of the male identified by CDFD.
The report is awaited.

The CDFD further opined that the cotton swabs belonged to Prathyusha but
detected a male DNA in it which according to them is that of a sperm cell. It would
be pertinent to mention here that five vaginal cotton swabs were received from
the mortuary for test by the APFSL. It needs to be emphasised that the APFSL had
used all the five swabs for tests and no semen or sperms were detected. It needs
to be further emphasised that for microscopic examination the APFSL had
extracted the material found in the cotton swabs and it was on this examination
that the APFSL had determined it's results. The CDFD did not conduct any
microscopic examination to ascertain the presence of sperms. A part of the swabs
were sent by CBI to the CFSL. However, the findings of the CFSL corroborates
the findings of the APFSL that no semen or sperms were present in the cotton
swabs.

Nevertheless, in view of the findings of CDFD that a male DNA was present in
the cotton swabs, CBI obtained blood samples of Siddharth Reddy and his five
friends and sent them to CDFD for analysis. The result indicated that the male
DNA did not match with any of them. ……

Page 24 of 60


….Enquiries with expert however revealed that contamination could have caused
the presence of male DNA in Prathyusha's cotton swab either through the analyst
or the environment. The CDFD ruled out the contamination on account of the
analyst since it was a female who had done the analysis It is therefore possible
that contamination from environment could have caused the presence of the male
DNA.

It has however to be noted that the mix-up of the viscera of Prathyusha and the
presence of a male DNA in her vaginal swab does not have a bearing on the case
for the following reasons :-
1. During the time Prathyusha was with Siddharth Reddy (i.e. from 6-00 p.m.

to 7-30 p.m. on 23.3.2002), she talked three times to her cousin Siri, once to her
mother, twice to film co- director Shri Anand and other friends and she did not
disclose that she was raped.
2. Prathyusha came to the hospital alive with signs of poisoning and
admitted to the doctor that she consumed a pesticide. She further made no mention
about any rape/sexual assault to any of hospital staff or her mother who met her
there.
3. State and Central FSL Reports have opined that stomach/ intestine of
Prathyusha contained the pesticide poison. It was further confirmed by APFSL
that the stomach wash of Prathyusha also contained the pesticide poison.
4. The CARE hospital doctors and staff who had examined Prathyusha's
body after removing the clothes by cutting the same for the purpose of treatment
found no injuries on the body to indicate any physical violence leading to a sexual
assault.

The investigation by the CBI has disclosed that Prathyusha and Siddharth
Reddy were in love and they decided to commit suicide since there was strong
objection to their marriage from the family of Siddharth. No evidence has come
on record to suggest that suicide was pre-planned either jointly or by any of
them individually. So, in all probability the decision to commit suicide together
was an impulsive one and so also the decision to live again thereafter, which
brought them to the hospital. The fact that Prathyusha committed suicide by
consuming Nuvocron, a pesticide poison is proved by the following facts : -

(1) Prathyusha came to the hospital alive and admitted to the doctor that she
consumed a pesticide.
(2) State and Central FSL Reports have opined that the viscera of Prathyusha
contained the said pesticide poison. The stomach wash of both Prathyusha and
Siddharth Reddy also contained the said pesticide poison as revealed by the State
FSL. The report of the FSL has precedence over the postmortem report since
the opinion corroborates with the direct evidence of the case.

The following facts revealed that Prathyusha was not manually strangulated or
sexually assaulted.:

(1) Prathyusha came to the hospital alive and made no mention about any
strangulation or rape/sexual assault to any of hospital staff or her mother who
met her there. During the time she was with Siddharth (i.e. from 6-00 p.m. to 7-
30 p.m. on 23.3.2002), she talked thrice to her cousin Siri, once to her mother,
Page 25 of 60


twice to Anand, co-director and other friends and she did not disclose that she
is being raped or strangulated.
(2) There were no injuries on the body of Prathyusha at the time of

admission in the hospital to indicate any physical violence leading to a manual
strangulation or sexual assault.
(3) Even though a male DNA was detected by CDFD in the cotton swab,
notwithstanding the fact that it could be a case of contamination, the fact that
during the crucial time (6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.) on 23.02.2002 the deceased was
with Siddharth alone and that the male DNA did not match with Siddharth or
his friends coupled with other evidences clearly show that there was no sexual
assault/rape.
(4) Even at the time of postmortem there were no indications of manual

strangulation such as wide open eyes, finger nail marks on her neck etc.,
(5) Sexual assault / rape was not suspected by the doctor is proved by the

fact that he did not collect (i) loose pubic hair and sample pubic hair to identify
the accused from the foreign hair (ii) matted pubic hair to identify the material
responsible for the matting of the hair and to identify the accused

The fact that Siddharth Reddy survived could be for the following plausible
reasons:
(1) Prathyusha was on diet and had lost 12 kgs. prior to her death. On that day
she had only two chapatis while Siddharth Reddy had attended a lunch party
that afternoon. Their physical conditions were poles apart.
(2) In females collinestrous enzyme is 50% less than in males, so the effect of
poison is much stronger on the females.
(3) Siddharth Reddy could not have known the fatal dose of the pesticide.

The offence of attempt to commit suicide (309 IPC) against Siddarth Reddy is
clearly brought out. He has aided the act of suicide by purchasing the pesticide,
coca-cola etc. on 23.02.2002. Therefore the offence of abetment of suicide (306
IPC) is attracted against him.

It was observed during investigation that Dr. B. Muniswamy who conducted the
postmortem examination had committed the following omissions and
commissions which culminated in an opinion regarding the cause of death of
Prathyusha which was erroneous and unprofessional.

1. Dr. B. Muniswamy disclosed his opinion to the media on 25.2.2002 even
before the receipt of reports from APFSL and even before he sent the PME
report dated 26.2.2002 to the IO.
2. In his interview to the TV he stated that it was a gang rape and in his final
opinion he revealed that rape/ sexual assault cannot be ruled out.
3. Even after receipt of the APFSL reports and a copy of the case sheet relating
to Prathyusha he opined that death was due to manual strangulation and sexual
assault/ rape cannot be ruled out.
4. Dr. B. Muniswamy had falsely represented to the Hon'ble High Court
regarding the following two injuries found on the body of Prathyusha (i)
Swelling of the neck (ii) Injuries on the back of the thighs in his affidavit dated
20.3.2002 filed before the Hon'ble court. It should be noted that he has not
mentioned these injuries in his postmortem report dated 26.2.2002.
Page 26 of 60


5. The original final opinion of Dr. B. Muniswamy is not available on record.
The carbon copy of his opinion dated 13.3.2002 could not have been prepared
on that date since in his another letter dated 13.3.2002 sent to Panjagutta P.S
he declined to give a final opinion till he received the original case sheets and
the negatives of the photographs taken during postmortem examination.

In view of these commissions & omissions on the part of Dr. Muniswamy,
disciplinary action is called for. A report is being sent to Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh in this regard.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

CONCLUSION:
(1). Prathyusha committed suicide by consuming a pesticide poison, Nuvocron.
(2) Siddharth Reddy abetted the suicide of Prathyusha and also attempted to
commit suicide whereby he is liable for prosecution u/s. 306 and 309 IPC.
(3) Dr. B. Muniswamy, Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi
Medical College who conducted the postmortem examination gave an opinion
regarding the cause of death of Prathyusha which was erroneous and
unprofessional.
(4) There was negligent response on the part of police officials attached to
Panjagutta PS and the Police Control Room when Prathyusha and Siddharth
Reddy were under treatment at the Care Hospital.
The report is placed before this Hon'ble Court.

(Prem Kumar)
Dy. Supdt. of Police
CBI/SCB/Chennai”
(emphasis supplied)

25. The High Court after examining the entire record including the affidavit
filed by Dr. B. Muni Swamy closed the public interest litigations vide its order
th
dated 6 September 2002 and permitted the CBI to file its charge-sheet.
Accordingly, CBI filed a chargesheet for offences punishable under Sections 306
and 309 IPC.
26. To prove the fact of past relationship between the deceased and the
accused, the prosecution examined Sarojini Devi (PW-1), who produced Ex. P2
autograph book, Ex. P3, P5 and P6 love letters, and Ex. P4 a chit, all in the
handwriting of the deceased and addressed to the Appellant-Accused. The
relevant part of the testimony of PW-1 is reproduced hereinbelow:
“About 9 months prior to her death, my daughter informed me that she was in
love with the accused and that she intended to marry him... As a mother, I initially
objected for the love affair between the accused and my daughter for a period of
one month, during which I advised her to concentrate on building up the career
Page 27 of 60


of herself first. My daughter was stubborn and asserted that she was love with the
accused and that she would marry him. Then I relented and agreed for their
marriage in principle, but I advised both of them to first pursue and build up their
careers, and then only their marriage can be performed…She spoke on the phone
for about 10 to 15 minutes. I heard her shout loudly into the phone "don't irritate
me". I then rushed to her bed room and asked her to whom she was speaking to.
She told me that she was talking to the accused. I asked her why they were
speaking so loudly, she told me that the accused conveyed to her that his parents
were not willing for his marriage with my daughter and that they even threatened
to commit suicide enmasse if the accused marries my daughter and that the
accused was worried about the prospects of the marriage…There was a call from
Buddha films, Bangalore confirming her booking in a Kanada film. My daughter
talked to them on phone enthusiastically over all aspects pertaining to her role
and remuneration… I found my daughter lying on the bed with an Oxygen mask
and other gadgeteries with several doctors and nurses around her. One of the
doctors asked my daughter how she was feeling, my daughter replied in feeble
voice that she was O.K. and her legs were shivering. After 2 or 3 minutes, I was
asked to go out, so as not to cause any disturbance to the patient, I then came
out. It was the last time I have seen my daughter alive … The hospital staff
informed that my daughter is condition became serious because of consumption
of poison…On the previous evening itself, we found some pressing marks of
fingers on the throat of my daughter. On the next morning we again saw the
deadbody and found those press marks on throat.”

27. Ms. Prafulla Sri, cousin of the deceased (PW-2) was examined to prove the

relationship between the deceased and the accused and the fact that they were last
seen together outside the parlour. The relevant portion of her evidence is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“The deceased Prathyusha was in love with the accused. The deceased and the
accused were close to each other since the time of Intermediate. The same
closeness was maintained till the death of the deceased… As we were to go to
Bangalore on the next morning, we went to Ferry's Beauty Parlour in Panjagutta
on that evening. Myself and the deceased left home at about 4 p.m. on my Kinetic
Honda and reached Beauty Parlour about an hour later. We were waiting there
for our turn as there were some more customers. During that wait the deceased
telephoned to the accused. Then she sat down on a chair and was getting her done
and told me that she wanted to call the accused there for one last time before she
went to Bangalore. Then I telephoned to the accused and told him what exactly
the deceased wanted me to tell him. The accused agreed to come. After some time
the deceased asked me to go outside and check around whether he came. I came
out looked around and found the accused there. I told him to wait a minute and
that I would go inside and informed, the deceased. I told the deceased that accused
has come, she asked me to give him some company till she came out. I came out
and spoke to the accused. He told me the same thing which the deceased told us
in the morning after the telephone talk to the accused. The accused told me that
his mother was not agreeing for the marriage and told him that she would take
poison if he goes through the marriage with the deceased and that his other
Page 28 of 60


family members also told him the same thing…When myself and accused were
discussing about it, the deceased came out of the Beauty parlour. All of a sudden
the accused and the deceased were in tears. As people were looking at us. I
suggested that we may sit down and talk. The accused suggested that we may sit
in his car and talk. The deceased told me to wait there or go to my friends as she
wanted to discuss with the accused something in private and she told me that
she would be back in five or ten minutes. I told the deceased to come back soon
so that we can go and book the Air tickets for our trip to Bangalore. The
deceased then left with the accused in his car. It was a white Maruti Zen…. ”
(emphasis supplied)
28. Similarly, G. Raghava (PW-6) and K. Bhasker (PW-7) were examined to
prove the past relationship between the deceased and the accused, and the fact
that they had met outside the beauty parlour and were thereafter admitted in
hospital together. Relevant portion of the evidence of G. Raghava (PW-6) and K.
Bhasker (PW-7) is reproduced hereinbelow:
G. Raghava (PW-6) :
“…The accused again telephoned to me, when I was still in Ranga's house and
told me that he was going to Somajiguda Ferry's Beauty Palour to meet the
deceased there. The accused told me that as he was going to meet the deceased,
if his parents telephoned to us and enquired about him, we may tell them that
he is with us only… After sometime he ·called me back. I asked him where he
was. He told me that he was at Tank Bund. Then I passed on the cell phone to
Ranga and Suraj, they talked to the accused. Suraj told me that accused
wanted me to telephone after sometime. From Baker's Inn, myself, Suraj,
Bhasker and others went to Necklace road. After reaching there Suraj
telephoned the accused. The accused told that he was in Himayathnagar. After
sometime the accused telephoned to the mobile of Bhasker and asked him to
give the phone to Ranga. We were in the necklace road at that time. Ranga
informed us that the accused and the deceased were in the Care Hospital and
that we should go there.”

K. Bhasker (PW-7) :
“I am aware that the deceased and the accused were in love with each other…
Myself, PW.6, Ranga and Suraj went to Necklace road. Before we left for
Necklace road, Siddharth contacted us and asked to contact him half an hour
later. After reaching the necklace road Suraj among us called the accused on
Phone, and asked him where he was and the accused informed us that he was
in Himayathnagar. After sometime the accused called me again on my cell,
and asked me to hand over the cell phone to Ranga. Then Ranga talked to
accused. During that call the deceased also talked to me and told me Hai
Bhasker and Bai Bhasker. The accused told Ranga to come to Care hospital.
After putting down the phone we were in doubt as to which Care hospital we
have to go. I again telephone to the accused and he told us that he was in Care
Banjara Hospital and asked me to come there. All of us went to Care hospital,
Page 29 of 60


Banjara Hills. We saw the car of the accused parked outside the hospital. We
did not open the car. We entered the hospital, we could not find the accused.
Ranga again called the accused on the cell phone and accused told Ranga that
he was in I.C.C.U.”

29. The presence of the deceased along with PW-2 was also spoken of by K.
Lavanya (PW-11), an employee of the beauty parlour. The relevant portion of her
testimony is reproduced hereinbelow:
“I am working in Ferry’s beauty parlour in Amruthamall, Somajiguda since
seven years. The deceased Prathysha was a regular customer of our beauty
parlour. On 23-2-2002 the deceased came to our beauty parlor at 4:30 p.m.
She was accompanied by her cousin whose name I do not know. The deceased
was given Hair doing and hair setting in our beauty parlour at that time. The
deceased and her cousin left our beauty parlour at 6 p.m, before leaving the
deceased telephoned from our beauty parlour. The deceased was in good mood
at that time. The cousin of the deceased was waiting outside while the deceased
was getting her hair done.”

30. The deceased and the accused were admitted to Care Hospital, Banjara
Hills and were attended to by Dr. Saraschandra (PW-10), Dr. Laxmi Kantaiah
(PW-13) and Dr. Kalyanasundaram (PW-32). The relevant portion of the
evidence of PW-10, PW-13 and PW-32 is reproduced hereinbelow:
Dr. Saraschandra (PW-10) :
“Ex.P.17 is the Case sheet pertaining to the deceased Prathyusha maintained
in Care Hospital, Banjara Hills. On 23-2-2002 I went to Care Hospitals;
Banjara Hills. The deceased was admitted in the Hospital at 8 p.m. on 23-2-
2002, I saw the deceased in ICCU at about 10.30p.m. while she was
undergoing treatment, I have gone through the case sheet of the deceased. The
deceased and accused were both admitted in the hospital as per the initial
evaluation as disclosed by the accused, the deceased and the accused
consumed poison . It was organophosphorus poison. After initial evaluation
we found the deceased quite sick and she was unable to breathe on her own.
She was put on life supporting measures. As the deceased was seriously ill, we
have put her on Central Veinus, Arterial blood lines and she was put on a
mechanical ventilation… On 23.2.2002 I have seen the accused also, we was
admitted in the acute medical care unit which is situate adjacent to ICCU. Ex.
P.18 is the case sheet in respect of the accused maintained by the hospital. The
condition of the accused is also critical but his vitals were found to the stable.
We started the standard treatment for poisoning for him also. The deceased
was directly admitted into ICCU because her condition was more critical and
she needed more life supporting measures which are available in ICCU.

The seriousness due to poisoning depends on the sex and also whether the
stomach is empty or otherwise. In case of females the poisoning will have
Page 30 of 60


more serious effect and also if the poison is consumed on empty stomach, it
will have more impact. In females the body surface is less and the levels of
enzymes were also less and therefore the poison will have more effect. ”
(emphasis supplied)
:
Dr. Laxmi Kantaiah (PW-13)
“On 23.2.2002 at 5 p.m. I went to CARE Hospital, Banjara Hills, on duty,
While I was in the hospital I received a phone from the ICCU at 8 p.m. saying
that there was a poison case and I should attend. I immediately went to ICCU,
I have seen a woman aged about 20 to 22 years. The woman was conscious.
I asked her what has happened. She told me that she consumed poison. She
is the deceased Prathyusha, I asked her what poison she has consumed. She
replied that it, was some pesticide. Immediately she vomited. I immediately
put ryles tube through her nose into stomach and I did stomach wash. At
about. 8.30 p.m. her condition was deteriorating and she was sinking. She was
nearing arrest. So immediately I put endotracheal tube through mouth into the
wind pipe to give artificial respiration. I connected her to the ventilator. Till
about 1.30 a.m. fluid was coming out from her lungs through the tube. Then I
called for help. At about 11 p.m. Dr. Sharath Chandra PW-10 came. He has
put an external jugular vein, small plastic canula into the jugular vein by the
side of the neck and into the heart which helped assess the pressure in the
heart. She was improving till the morning of next day. Whenever I was calling
her by name she was responding by opening her eyes and nodding her head. I
was in the ICCU throughout night and till 6 a.m. I obtained consent from the
mother of the deceased for doing above procedure. The brother of PW.1 was
also present outside the ICCU. At about 6:30 a.m. Dr.Soma Raju came to see
the patient. As the patient was moving with pain, he suggested to me to give
some sedation to her. I did not give the sedation to the patient as we wanted to
observe the brain function and I told Dr.Soma Raju about it. At 9:00 a.m. my
reliver came and I handed over the patient case sheet to Dr.Murli who was my
reliver. At that time the deceased was conscious and is opening her eyes and
nodding her head and her B.P. was stable . On the night of 23-2-2002 I had
another call from A.M.C. which is adjacent to ICCU to attend on another
patient Siddartha Reddy the same person the accused now before the Court. I
went there and saw the accused, I asked him what has happened. He told me
that he has consumed two gulps of pesticide. He was struggling to breathe… I
have not seen any Injuries on the person of the deceased.”
(emphasis supplied)
Dr. Kalyanasundaram (PW -32)
“At about 8 p.m. on 23-2-2002 Dr. Prakash, Junior Resident doctor who was
my colleague informed that there is a patient of consumption of Poison. I
advised him to admit in the Acute Medical Care Unit. At that time, I was
attending on another patient at Acute Medical Care Unit. The AMCU and
ICCU are adjacent to each other. The patient was brought from ICCU to
AMCU in a wheel chair. I attended on the patient immediately. The said
patient is Siddartha Reddy, accused herein. I asked him whether the can get
the poison container. He did not say anything. I was called to see another
patient admitted in ICCU. I went there and saw the said patient who is the
deceased Pratyusha. She was already on treatment. We did stomach wash. All
Page 31 of 60


the treatment given to deceased Pratyusha is noted in the case sheet Ex:P.70
under my signatures….
I did not notice any injuries on the person of the deceased at the time of
admission in the hospital. I told Junior Residents Dr.Prakash and Dr.Chima
to secure the container of the poison through the relatives of the patient.
About 2 hours later, the friends of the accused showed me the poison
container. M0.1 is the said poison container and it is Nuvokran, inspite of
the treatment, the deceased could not survive. She died about 11.45 a.m. In
the case sheet Ex. P. 70 the cause of death is noted as consumption of
Organo Phosperous Poisoning. ”
(emphasis supplied)
31. The deceased was also attended to by A. Anitha (PW-16), who was

working as Ayaha in CARE Hospital. The relevant part of the deposition of A.
Anitha (PW-16) is reproduced hereinbelow:
A. Anitha (PW-16)
“On 23-2-2002 I was on duty in the second shift at ICCU. On that night I continued on
duty in the night shift also as my reliever who was a muslim could not attend duty
because it was Bakrid Festival day. When my second shift was about to come to an end,
a boy and a girl came to ICCU. The sister on duty asked me to bring two basins as
those two patients were vomiting. At that time, I did not know the names of those two
patients. Both the patients. Both the patients vomited. The girl vomited slightly and the
boy vomited severely. I took that boy to AMC in a wheel chair and I came back. By that
time the girl was lying on the bed and some pipes were put in her nose and mouth. After
some time the girl passed urine and motioned. The sister instructed me to wine clean
up and I cleaned the patient. The dress the girl was wearing was so tight that it could
not be easily removed. Then the sister on duty by name Tushara instructed me to cut the
dress and remove it. I cut the dress of the girl and removed it and put it in the dust bin.
I cleaned the whole bed and also the patient. The removed clothes were kept in another
dust bin outside the ICCU in the dust bin room. I continued on duty on the next morning
first shift also as that reliever also a muslim did not turn up. I was on duty till 1 p.m, on
24.2.2002. After the girl died. Myself and another sister on duty at that time packed the
body of the deceased in another dress brought by the patient's people. After that I left
duty. The deceased was admitted to Bed No.8 and then shifted to Bed No.5. The accused
now before the court was the" boy who came to the hospital that night and whom I have
taken to AMC in the wheel chair from the ICCU. I came to know subsequently that the
name of the deceased is Prathyusha and the name of the accused is Siddhartha
Reddy. I have not observed any injuries on the person of the deceased, when I cleaned
her. I was examined by the CBI and my statement was recorded…”
(emphasis supplied)

32. The Investigating Officer, Mr. M. Narendra Chungi (S.I. Panjagutta PS)
was examined as PW-24. SI M. Narendra Chungi had issued the requisition for
Page 32 of 60


th
conducting postmortem on 25 February 2002. The relevant portion of his
deposition is reproduced hereinbelow:
M. Narendra Chungi (PW-24)

“PW-1 the mother of the deceased and uncle of the deceased came to me and informed
me that the deceased had consumed poison….When I saw the dead body I found injuries
on the neck and also on the wrist. I asked Dr. Kalyana Sundaram of CARE Hospital
about those injuries. He told me that the said injuries were caused during the course of
the treatment.”

33. Dr. M. Narayana Reddy, who was part of the three-member Expert
Committee constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated
th th
05 March 2002 and which gave its report dated 09 March 2002, was examined
as PW-31. The relevant portion of his evidence is reproduced hereinbelow:
Dr. M. Narayana Reddy (PW-31)
“As per the PME report stomach contained 150 ml of yellowish brown liquid
of thick consistency, abnormal odour was present Mucosa was congested,
brain, lungs, liver, pancreas, spleen, kidneys and adrenals were congested.
These signs are consistant with that of poisoning. The Hyoid bone, Crycoid
cartilage and Thyroid cartilage were intact. Nothing abnormal was noted in
the genital organs. The reports of FSL shows on Chemical analysis organo
phosphate poison was found in the internal organs. Semon and spermatozoa
were not detected from the cotton swabs… After going through all the above
documents we expressed the following opinion:-

1) No signs of death due to manual strangulation were noted in the post
mortem report on the contrary there was evidence she was under treatment
from 8 p.m. on 23.2.2002 to 11.45 a.m. (not 11.45 p.m. as mistakenly typed in
the report of 24.2.2002, for organo phosphate poisoning.

2)The post mortem signes such as the congestion of them mucus membrane of
the stomach and the presence of abnormal odour in the contest of the stomach
were consistent with that of death due to poisoning.

3) In the opinion column it has been stated that the semen was collected from
the vagina. It is not possible to identify from the naked eye examination
whether the fluid collected from the vagina was semen or vaginal secretions.
It could be known as semen only on the Laboratory examination.
The opinion of the expert committee is as follows:-
1) The cause of death was due to Organo Phosphate poisoning.
2) There was no evidence of death due to manual strangulation.
3) There was no evidence of sexual assault prior to her death.”
Page 33 of 60


34. The case of the prosecution was that due to opposition to the marriage
proposal between the deceased and the Appellant-Accused by the family of the
latter, both of them decided to commit suicide by consuming ‘Nuvacron’ pesticide
mixed with coca-cola. According to the prosecution, it was the Appellant-
rd
Accused who purchased the poison, i.e., ‘Nuvacron’ on the evening of 23
February 2002 from G. Anil Kumar (PW-34) who was at that time a salesman in
a shop called Revathi Agencies at Hyderguda, Hyderabad. Further, the Appellant-
Accused also procured chocolate and knife from Anand Rao (PW-35) who at the
time was working in Foodworld Shop at Himayatnagar. Relevant portion of the
testimonies of G. Anil Kumar (PW-34) and Anand Rao (PW-35) are reproduced
hereinbelow:
G. Anil Kumar (PW-34)


“I am studying intermediate 1st year, Vivekavardhini College, Hyderabad. In the
th
year 2002, I was studying 9 class in PR Vidyalaya High school. The school
timings were from 12-30 p.m to 5 p.m. I was working as Sales Boy in Revathi
Agencies in the year 2002. The owner of the said shop is my uncle by name B.Ravi
Kumar. The shop timings are from 9.30 a.m to 9 p.m. The shop is situate in
Hyderguda. After the school timings are over, I will be working in the shop from 5
p.m to 9 p.m. We sell seeds and pesticides in that shop. On the orders placed by
the owner of the shop, the stocks are received and I enter them in the stock register.
Bills are issued (for the purchases made if they are asked for by the purchasers. If
bills are not asked for by the purchasers, we prepare a comprehensive bill of all
such sales at the end of the day for our record purpose and we enter the same in
the stock register.

On 23-2-2002 between 5 p.m and7 p.m, one person came to the shop and asked
for Novokran bottle . The cost of the said Novokran bottle is Rs. 100/-. I prepared
the bill Ex.P.42 regarding the sale of the said Novokran bottle. In Ex.P.42 bill,
there are two other entries one in respect of Dalraet 250 ml for Rs.60/- and Ara
250 ml for Rs.60/-. Ex.P.42 bill was prepared in the evening regarding the total
sales. The person who purchased the Novokran bottle is now present before the
court as accused. I entered the bill Ex.P.42 in the stock register under Ex.P.44
entry.

We purchased 80 tills of Novokran from Rekha corporation on 21-6-2001 and the
same is entered in the stock register at page 75. MO.1 is Novokran bottle sold by
me to the accused. Subsequently, local police came to our shop and took me to the
Care hospital and asked me to identify the person to whom I sold the bottle and I
identified him. Local police took the bill book and also the stock register.
Subsequently, the CBI police came to our shop and seized one bottle of Novokran
from our shop .

Page 34 of 60


I appeared for the Test Identification Parade in the Jail conducted by Magistrate
and in that parade also I identified the accused. I signed the statement before the
Magistrate at the time of Test Identification Parade. Ex.P.58 is my statement
before the Magistrate on the eve of T.I.Parade. I was examined by CBI and my
statement was recorded. I was examined by CBI on 9-4-2002.

…. As per Ex. P.42, all the three items are not purchased by the same person.
There was a bill prepared by us for purpose of stock register entry. Ex.P.42 does
not show that the three items mentioned there were purchased by different persons.
The bill book containing Ex.P.42 and also the stock register contained Ex.P.44
were taken by local police…”
(emphasis supplied)
Anand Rao (PW-35)

“I am a resident of Sirpur Kagaznagar, RR District. I am now doing contract work
along with my father in Sirpur Kagaznagar. I worked in Foodworld shop at
Himayatnagar from January, 2000 to December, 2002.

ACP Mohd. Ismail came and met me on 23-2-2002. I do not remember the exact
date. He showed me Ex.P.40. Ex.P.40 bills pertains to fisker knife and two
cadburry chocolates. I was cashier in food world shop at the time of the said
purchase. I gave the bill Ex.P.40 for the said purchase. After issuing the bill, I
verified with the stock monitoring machine and assured that the bill was issued by
me. M.O. 4 is the fisker knife covered by Ex.P.40. Accused now before the court
was the person who purchased M0.4 knife and the chocolates under Ex.P.40. I was
examined by CBI and my statement was recorded.

CROSS EXAMINATION FOR THE ACCUSED:-
I was examined by CBI on 9.4.2002. I had no prior acquaintance with the accused
prior to date of purchase. Subsequently. I have seen the accused in the media.
There is no other record to show that the accused was the person who purchased
the knife MO.4 under Ex. P.40 bill. I was taken to the jail to identify the accused
in Test Identifiation Parade. I did not identify the accused in T.I. parade. It is not
true that the accused did not purchase MO.4 knife at our shop. Police did not ask
me for any document to show that I was the employee of food world and that is
why I have not produced any such document before them.”

rd
35. The Sessions Court vide judgment dated 23 February 2004 convicted the

Appellant-Accused of offences punishable under Sections 306, and 309 IPC and
sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fined ₹ 5,000/- under
Section 306 IPC and one year simple imprisonment and fined ₹1,000/- under
rd
Section 309 IPC. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 23 February 2004
is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“31….From the evidence, of PW26 coupled with Ex, P39 report the learned
counsel for the accused contended that the stomach wash of the deceased and
Page 35 of 60


accused were not containing the pesticide and so the case of the prosecution
that the death was due to poisoning cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that
PW18 examined the stomach wash within three days of its collection and gave
the report Ex, P26 stating that the stomach was as also the other items of
viscera contained the pesticide poison. The examination of the remnants of the
same sample of stomach was by PW26 was much later ie., between 29-4-2002
and 16-5-2002 as can be seen from Ex.P.39 report which is more than two
months after the incident. The possibility of the traces of the poison in the
remnants of the sample after such long lapse of time disappearing cannot be
ruled out. Further apart from the stomach wash the other Items of Viscera
examined by PW26 were found to contain the poison, the sample of MQ.1. The
same Monocrotophos which is an Organo Phosphate insecticide was found in
the control item of Nuvocron also; The testimony of PW26 coupled with Ex,
P39 report also supports the prosecution case except that the poison was not
found in the sample of stomach wash at that length of time. The above evidence
of the Forensic Experts establishes that it was a case of poisoning and the
poison consumed is monocrotophos an organo phosperous insecticide.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

36. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution has
not placed before the court the reports of the D.N.A. finger printing. The
learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that as there was nothing
incriminating in the said reports, they are not placed before the court. He
...filed a memo on 16-12-2002 to the effect that the C.D.F.D. has submitted
one the report to the Honourable High Court and one copy to the 'C.B.I. and
the C.D.F.D. reports are not found relevant to the present case and they are
no more required to the C.B.I, When the prosecution found it not relevant, or
required for the purpose of their case, there is no call upon them to file such
documents. In the present case, the evidence of various experts discussed
supra, clearly shows that the death was only due to poisoning and not manual
strangulation with or without sexual assault.”

36. Vide the impugned judgment, the criminal appeal filed by the Appellant-
Accused and the criminal revision filed by the Appellant-Complainant, were
dismissed. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“25. It should be noted that in both the above cases the accused and the
deceased entered into a suicide pact and executed it, but one of them died and
the other survived. The survivor was put on trial for murder or manslaughter.
At that time in England when the above cases were decided there was no
provision akin Section 306 IPC though it is not known what the position now
is. However the principle is important. The principle and the reasons in the
above two cases would, in my opinion, show that in such cases which are akin
to the present case, each of them i.e. the two partners must be held responsible
for the abetment of the suicide by the other in keeping silent i.e. by an illegal
omission and encouraging the other to go for suicide while the abettor
himself/herself also making an attempt to commit suicide. At the end of the
Page 36 of 60


second case the authors of the commentary gave an opinion that in India in
such cases the survivor can be held guilty of abetment.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

35. It may be noted that after the CBI has filed the charge sheet alleging the
offences under Section 306 and 309 IPC against the accused, the de facto
complainant did not take any steps either by filing a protest petition or a
private compliant or otherwise to plead before the committal court that the
investigation done by the CBI was faulty and the accused should have been
prosecuted for the offences of murder and rape. The de facto complainant also
gave evidence as P.W.1 and her evidence does not show that she alleged that
the accused has committed the murder of her daughter. P.W.2 Prafulla Sri is
a cousin of the deceased. She also did not complain against the CBI. What
should be noted is that the de facto complainant allowed the committal
proceedings and the trial to go on, for the offences alleged by the CBI and they
did not pursue any steps which were available to them before the committal
court for prosecution of the accused for more serious offences. From the
evidence on record also nothing has been brought to the notice of this court to
set aside the convictions and for directing a committal and a re-trial for severe
offences though this court has got that power under Section 386(b) of Cr.P.C.
even in an appeal from conviction.”

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED
37. Mr. S. Nagamuthu and Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, learned senior counsel for
the Appellant-Accused stated that the present case was based on circumstantial
evidence. They submitted that each circumstance projected by the prosecution
was required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and such proved
circumstance would have to form a complete chain without any missing link and
unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused, without any alternative hypothesis
which would have to be inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. According to
them, the circumstances projected by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
Appellant-Accused in the present appeals were the following:-
A. Appellant-Accused and deceased were in tears because their marriage
proposal had become impossible on account of the suicide threat given
by the parents of the accused in the event they went ahead with their
marriage proposal.
B. The Appellant-Accused and deceased were last seen together in the car
of the Appellant-Accused.
Page 37 of 60


C. The Appellant-Accused and the deceased reached the hospital together
for their treatment.
D. The deceased told the Dr. Laxmi Kanthaiah (PW-13) that she had
consumed pesticide.
E. The deceased died of organophosphate poisoning.
F. The Appellant-Accused had purchased the pesticide from the shop of

Mr. G. Anil Kumar (PW-34).
G. The Appellant-Accused had purchased a knife as well as coca-cola and

chocolates from PW-35.
38. According to them, the circumstances ‘A’ and ‘B’ stood proved from the
testimony of PW-2. They stated that circumstance ‘C’ was proved by PW-13, who
stated that both the accused and the deceased appeared together in the hospital
for treatment. Apropos circumstances ‘D’ and ‘E’, they stated that the same were
proved by Dr. Laxmi Kanthaiah (PW-13) and the medical opinion given by
Dr. M. Narayana Reddy (PW-31).
39. They, however, stated that circumstances ‘F’ and ‘G’, that the Appellant-
Accused had purchased pesticide as well as Coca-Cola, chocolates and knife,
were not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
40. They pointed out that to prove the purchase of the poison, i.e., Nuvacron,
the prosecution had examined PW-34 from whose shop the Appellant-Accused
rd
allegedly purchased the poison on 23 February 2002 between 5:00 PM and
7:00 PM. The bill for the alleged purchase was marked as Ex. P-42. They pointed
out that Ex. P-42 showed sale of three items viz. Dalraet and Ara for ₹60 (Rupees
Sixty) each and Nuvacron for ₹100 (Rupees One Hundred). They stated that it
was not the prosecution’s case that the Appellant-Accused had purchased all three
items and therefore, by relying upon Ex. P-42, it was doubtful that the Appellant-
Accused had purchased any item. They further pointed out that the bill Ex. P-42
did not bear the name of the purchaser and therefore, the Appellant-Accused
could not be linked with the purchase of the pesticide.
Page 38 of 60


41. They further stated that G. Anil Kumar (PW-34) was examined by the CBI
th
on 09 March 2002. They emphasised that before the Magistrate, Mr. G. Anil
Kumar (PW-34) had stated that Nuvacron was purchased one month prior to
examination by the CBI. They, therefore, contended that Appellant-Accused did
rd
not purchase the pesticide on 23 February 2002.
42. They contended that the prosecution had failed to establish that the Test
Identification Parade (TIP) was properly conducted. They stated that though PW-
34 identified the Appellant-Accused during the TIP; however, the learned
Magistrate who conducted the TIP was not examined.
43. They stated that even before the TIP, the Appellant-Accused was shown to
PW-34 in hospital. They contended that there was no special reason for PW-34 to
have an imprint of the identifying features of the person who purchased the items,
so as to correctly identify him during TIP. They contended that the dock
identification two years after the incident was of no value. In support of their
submission, they relied upon the judgments of this Court in Umesh Chandra vs.
State of Uttarakhand (2021) 17 SCC 616; Ganpat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
(1997) 11 SCC 565; Girja Shankar Misra vs. State of U.P. 1994 Supp (1) SCC
26; Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022) 9 SCC 402 .
44. They emphasised that there was no evidence to prove either the recovery
of the bottle of Nuvacron or the place of its recovery. They pointed out that Mr.K.
Bhasker (PW-7), the recovery witness had turned hostile. Therefore, according to
them, the purchase of the pesticide/poison had not been proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt.
45. Similarly, they contended that the prosecution had failed to prove that the

Appellant-Accused purchased the fiskar knife, coca-cola and chocolate from the
shop of PW-35 vide Bill Ex. P-40. They pointed out that PW-35 during cross
examination had stated that in the TIP, he did not identify the Appellant-Accused.
They stated that the Appellant-Accused was identified for the first time in court,
Page 39 of 60


two years after the incident. They stated that Ex. P-40 did not bear the name of
the purchaser.
46. They submitted that offence under Section 306 IPC is no exception to the
requirement of mens rea . They contended that the conduct of the deceased and
the Appellant-Accused in going to the hospital after consuming poison was a
relevant fact under Sections 8 and 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872. According to
them, if the intent of the accused and deceased was to end their lives, they would
not have gone to the hospital at all. They contended that the conduct of both the
deceased and the Appellant-Accused gave rise to a presumption under Section
114 of Evidence Act, 1872 that they had either accidentally consumed the
pesticide, or had done so with intent to threaten their family members that if their
marriage proposal was not accepted, they may end their lives.
47. They also contended that the statement of the deceased before Dr. Laxmi
Kantaiah (PW-13) amounted to a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the
Evidence Act, 1872. They contended that the dying declaration did not remotely
indicate that the deceased had consumed poison upon any instigation or aid of the
Appellant-Accused. They pointed out that the deceased had merely stated that she
had consumed pesticide, thereby ruling out any instigation or aid of the Appellant-
Accused.
48. They contended that the dying declaration as well as the subsequent
conduct of the appellant and deceased gave rise to an alternative hypothesis which
is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused.
49. They submitted that in similar circumstances where the deceased had died
due to poisoning, this Court in Velladurai vs. State (2022) 17 SCC 523 , had
acquitted the accused therein. The relevant portion of the judgment in Velladurai
vs. State (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:
“12. Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if
any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation
the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be
punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide.
Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must
Page 40 of 60


be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said
to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of
instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed
and held by this Court in Amalendu Pal [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC
707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , mere harassment without any positive action on the
part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would
not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC.

13 . Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something.
Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide.
In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on
the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment.
There is no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active role by an
act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary,
in the present case, even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and
consumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the
case and there is no other material on record which indicates abetment, both the High
Court as well as the learned trial court have committed an error in convicting the
accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.”
50. However, learned senior counsel for the Appellant-Accused admitted that
since the deceased was no more, the appellant was bound to explain the events
between the time period when the appellant and deceased were last seen outside
the beauty parlour and when they arrived at the hospital for treatment. They
submitted that the explanation can either be expressly made by way of defence or
gathered from the evidence on record. They submitted that this burden under
Section 106 of Evidence Act is required to be discharged by preponderance of
probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. They contended that the dying
declaration as well as the subsequent conduct of the appellant and deceased duly
explained as to what had happened in between. They, therefore, contended that
the Appellant-Accused had discharged the burden under Section 106 of Evidence
Act, 1872.
51. Even otherwise, they stated that assuming that the Appellant-Accused had
failed to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, that
by itself would not go to prove the guilt of the Appellant-Accused beyond
reasonable doubt. They emphasised that failure to discharge such burden at most
can only be an additional link in the chain of circumstance.
Page 41 of 60


52. They conceded that insofar as the offence under Section 309 IPC was
concerned, since the accused had offered no explanation as to how he came to
consume the poison, there was no valid defence. They, however, submitted that
this Court in Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648 has held that an
accused held guilty under Section 309 IPC was entitled to be released under
Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF MOTHER OF THE DECEASED AND
APPELLANT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.894-985 OF 2012
53. Mr. Gireesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the mother of the
deceased and Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.894-895 of 2012 contended that
the present case is of rape and murder by manual strangulation and not poisoning
as alleged by the prosecution and as held by the Courts below. He contended that
the FIR was registered for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code (‘IPC’), but no investigation was conducted to prove the case of
murder. He stated that the respondent-CBI filed a chargesheet for offences under
Sections 306 and 309 IPC alone. He pointed out that the postmortem of the
th
deceased was conducted by Dr. B. Muni Swamy, who in his report dated 25
February 2002 opined the cause of death as under:
“Pressure over the neck, Asphyxia due to manual strangulation. However,
viscera is preserved for chemical analysis to detect poison if any. Semen
collected from vagina for grouping and DNA fingerprinting test.”
54. He stated that even though the said Dr. B. Muni Swamy died in 2009, yet
he was never produced as a witness before the Court. He stated that the semen
which was collected by Dr. B. Muni Swamy was sent to CDFD. However, the
report stating that semen was detected and the male fraction of the semen of
Exhibit A (Part of cotton swab) contained DNA of a human male individual was
not produced before the Courts below.
55. He further alleged that there had been tampering with the evidence in the
present case as the CDFD report stated that source of Exhibits C & D, i.e., part of
kidney and liver and reddish turbid liquid (blood) were not that of the victim.
Page 42 of 60


th
56. He also stated that the CFSL report dated 16 May 2002 proved that the
death of the deceased was not due to poisoning as no poison was detected in the
stomach wash of the deceased, meaning thereby, the consumption of poison by
the accused was doubtful.
57. He stated that PW-1 to PW-3 had categorically stated that they had found
pressing marks/injuries on the throat of the deceased. He further stated that
Investigating Officer (PW-24) had deposed that he had found injuries/pressing
marks on the throat of the deceased.
58. According to Mr. Gireesh Kumar, learned counsel, the aforesaid
circumstances proved beyond doubt that the deceased was raped and thereafter
murdered by strangulation. He contended that the investigating agency failed to
properly investigate the death of the deceased and erroneously filed the
chargesheet for offences under Sections 306 and 309 IPC.
59. He pointed out that according to Mr. G. Raghava (PW-6), the accused had
contacted Ranga and Suraj and asked them to get the container containing the
pesticide. He stated that the accused had falsely denied any relationship with the
deceased in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement. According to him, the said conduct
of the accused was unnatural.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-CBI
60. Per contra , Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, learned senior counsel for the CBI
submitted that the impugned judgment is in consonance with the facts and legally
tenable.
rd
61. He pointed out that admittedly, on 23 February 2002, the Appellant-
Accused had conveyed to the deceased his parents’ opposition to the marriage
between the Appellant-Accused and the deceased and that the deceased was very
upset. He pointed out that PW-2 had deposed that the Appellant-Accused had
arrived at Ferry’s beauty parlour at around 5:45 PM on the date of the incident
and thereafter both the deceased and the Appellant-Accused had left in the Maruti
Zen car of the Appellant-Accused.
Page 43 of 60


62. He stated that G. Raghava (PW-6) had deposed that the Appellant-Accused
had informed him that he was going to Ferry’s beauty parlour to meet the
deceased. G. Raghava (PW-6) had further deposed that after some time, the
Appellant-Accused had informed Ranga (a friend) that both the deceased and the
Appellant-Accused were in CARE Hospital. He stated that presence of deceased
at Ferry’s beauty parlour had also been corroborated by K. Lavanya (PW-11),
who at the time was an employee of the beauty parlour. He, therefore, contended
that the abovementioned evidence proved beyond doubt that the Appellant-
Accused was last seen together with the deceased at Ferry’s beauty parlour and
thereafter they arrived together at the hospital for their treatment.
63. He contended that in a mutual bid to end their lives, the Appellant-Accused

had purchased 250 ml of ‘Nuvacron’, a pesticide, from Revathi Agencies in
Hyderguda and also purchased a fiskar knife from Foodworld Store,
Himayatnagar for opening the ‘Nuvacron’ tin can and 2 bottles of 1.5 liters of
coca-cola from King’s Bakery. He stated that the ‘Nuvacron’ pesticide was mixed
with coca-cola and both the deceased and the Appellant-Accused had consumed
the same around 7 PM on the same day.
64. He stated that G. Anil Kumar (PW-34), who at the time was a salesman at
Revathi Agencies had deposed that the Appellant-Accused had purchased the
pesticide ‘Nuvacron’ on the date of the incident. He pointed out that the bill for
the purchase was Ex. P-42 and sale & stock registers had also been exhibited as
Ex. P-43 and Ex. P-44. He stated that G. Anil Kumar (PW-34) had identified the
Appellant-Accused in the hospital and in the Test Identification Parade in the
presence of a Magistrate. He emphasised that G. Anil Kumar (PW-34) again
identified the Appellant-Accused in Court. He thus contended that the purchase
of ‘Nuvacron’ pesticide by the Appellant-Accused had been proved beyond
doubt.
Page 44 of 60


65. He stated that similarly, Anand Rao (PW-35), an employee of the Food
World Shop had testified that the Appellant-Accused was the person who
purchased fiskar knife and two chocolates under a receipt Ex. P-40.
66. He contended that the evidence of G. Anil Kumar (PW-34) could not be
brushed aside only on the ground that the learned Magistrate was not examined.
He emphasized that identification in Court is admissible in law, especially when
the presence of the Appellant-Accused at the time of consumption of poison is
proved beyond doubt. He pointed out that this Court in Dana Yadav alias Dahu
and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295 has held that failure to hold TIP
does not make the evidence of identification inadmissible, rather the same is very
much admissible in law. He submitted that it is settled position of law that the
identification parade of the accused before the court of law is not the main and
substantive piece of evidence but is only a corroborative piece of evidence.
67. He pointed out that the fact that they both consumed poison is proved from
th
the AP FSL report dated 27 February 2002, which records that organophosphate
poison was found in all the items sent for testing. He pointed out that as per the
th
AP FSL report dated 27 February 2002, the deceased had consumed 150 milli
liters of poison. He stated that the three-member Committee vide its report dated
th
09 March 2002 has recorded that the deceased was under treatment for
organophosphate poisoning and that the external injuries were a result of the
treatment given to the deceased.
68. He pointed out that Dr. Laxmi Kantaiah (PW-13) at CARE Hospital had
deposed that the deceased had informed her that she had consumed poison. He
stated that Dr. Saraschandra (PW-10) had deposed that the deceased and the
accused had consumed organophosphate poison. According to him, from the
above evidence it is proved that the Appellant-Accused had purchased pesticide
and thus aided in the consumption of the said pesticide by the deceased. He
contended that the act of the accused in procuring the poison and not preventing
the deceased from consuming the same makes him culpable for offences
Page 45 of 60


punishable under Section 306 read with 107 IPC. He further contended that the
above evidence makes it apparent that the accused did not dissuade the deceased
and, in fact, joined the deceased in consuming poison.
69. He submitted that the ingredients essential to establish a case of abetment
of suicide have been reiterated in a recent judgment passed by this Court in
Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 2025 SCC Online
SC 1725 , wherein this Court has held as under:
“21 . It was held that abetment involves the mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive
act on the part of the accused, in aiding or instigating or abetting the deceased
to commit suicide, a conviction cannot be sustained.

22. What comes out essentially from the various decisions herein before cited is
that, even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long
period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still
there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the
direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident
having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one's life.
Figuratively, ‘the straw that broke the camel's back’; that final event, in a
series, that occasioned a larger, sudden impact resulting in the unpredictable
act of suicide. What drove the victim to that extreme act, often depends on
individual predilections; but whether it is goaded, definitively and
demonstrably, by a particular act of another, is the test to find mens rea. Merely
because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she
succumbed to the extreme act of taking his life cannot by itself result in finding
a positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be gleaned merely
by what goes on in the mind of the victim.”

70. He contended that the Appellant-Accused had not given any explanation in
his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC thereby pointing to the guilt of
the Appellant-Accused. He stated that the Appellant-Accused had denied having
any relationship with the deceased and had even denied being admitted to the
hospital. He pointed out that the Appellant-Accused had stated that he did not
consume any poison and that he did not know how the deceased died. He
contended that these facts were within the exclusive knowledge of the
deceased/the appellant/accused. According to him, since the deceased had passed
away, it was for the Appellant-Accused to explain the circumstances under
Section 313 CrPC, but he had failed to do so.
Page 46 of 60


71. According to him, the fact that the deceased was alive when admitted in
hospital and was receiving treatment for organophosphate poisoning rules out
death by strangulation. He stated that the entire forensic and medical evidence
rules out death by strangulation and points conclusively to a case of death of
organophosphate poisoning.
72. He submitted that as per Section 114 IPC, where the person was present
when the act or offence was committed, he shall be deemed to have committed
such an act or offence and would be liable to be punished as an abettor. In support
of his submission, he relied upon a judgment of this Court in Patel Babubhai
Manohardas and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat 2025 SCC Online SC 503 .
73. He further submitted that Appellant-Accused is not entitled to benefit under

Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 as the case of the Appellant-
Accused did not fall in any of the categories mentioned therein, as the punishment
for offence under Section 306 IPC could extend to ten (10) years.
th
74. He pointed out that both the AP FSL report dated 27 February 2002 and
th
CFSL report dated 20 May 2002 recorded that semen and spermatozoa were not
detected on the cotton swab. He stated that the three-member committee in its
th
report dated 09 March 2002 also recorded that there was no evidence of sexual
assault prior to death. He, therefore, contended that the present case was not that
of rape and death by manual strangulation, as alleged by the mother of the
deceased and Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 894-895 of 2012.
th
75. The learned senior counsel stated that the postmortem report dated 25
February 2002 was not only erroneous but the same was prepared by Dr. B. Muni
Swamy in a wholly unprofessional manner as he had given an opinion of presence
of sperm on a naked eye examination and without waiting for the AP FSL report
th
dated 27 February 2002. The learned senior counsel further stated that Dr. B.
Muni Swamy had misinterpreted the injuries received during the treatment as
external injuries. He pointed out that the three-member Expert Committee vide
th
its report dated 09 March 2002 had clearly opined that cause of death of
Page 47 of 60


deceased was Organophosphate poisoning. He emphasised that the three-member
Expert Committee was of the opinion that Dr. B. Muni Swamy ought to have
exercised restraint before expressing an opinion contrary to the Inquest Report.
76. He stated that a recommendation for initiation of RDA for imposition of a
major penalty was made against Dr. B. Muni Swamy for contravention of Rules
3(1) to 3(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, on
account of furnishing an erroneous and unprofessional opinion regarding the
cause of death.
REJOINDER
77. In rejoinder, Mr. Nagamuthu and Mr. L. Narasimha Reddy, learned senior

th
counsel for the Appellant-Accused stated that the AP FSL report dated 27
th
February 2002 and CFSL report dated 20 May 2002 had confirmed that no
semen had been detected on the cotton swabs forwarded to them. They stated that
th
even the CDFD report dated 24 May 2002 only mentioned that DNA was found
but it did not mention the presence of semen. They contended that the
complainant’s assumption that the said DNA necessarily represented semen was
unfounded and scientifically untenable. They stated that there was no conclusive
proof of the presence of semen and in any event, the deceased’s declaration that
she consumed poison ruled out any interference of sexual assault or homicidal
violence.
78. Further, the complainant-deceased mother’s reliance on CDFC report dated
th
05 April 2002 was misconceived as according to the said report, Exhibit A
(Cotton Swab) and Exhibit B (stomach and intestine) belonged to the deceased
but Exhibit C (liver and kidney) and Exhibit D (blood) did not. They stated that
nothing turned on the alleged “mix-up”, since Exhibit B (stomach and intestine)
– in which poison was found by AP FSL and CFSL – admittedly belonged to the
deceased. They contended that this fact confirmed consumption of poison by the
deceased.
Page 48 of 60


REASONING
MURDER BY STRANGULATION IS RULED OUT

79. This Court is of the view that the allegation of homicidal death by manual
strangulation is wholly unsustainable. The testimony of PW-1, the mother of the
deceased and appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos. 894–895 of 2012, is particularly
telling. She admitted that when she saw her daughter in the ICU of CARE
Hospital, the latter was not only alive but also conscious, able to respond in a
feeble voice to the doctor’s questions and her legs were trembling. Such a
condition is medically inconsistent with strangulation. The fact that the deceased
was able to speak and exhibit motor activity demonstrates beyond doubt that
strangulation was not the cause of death.

80. This conclusion is further reinforced by the testimony of Dr. Laxmi
Kanthaiah (PW-13), who stated that at the time of admission, the deceased was
conscious and herself disclosed that she had consumed poison. Dr. Saraschandra
(PW-10) corroborated this account, testifying that both the deceased and the
accused informed him that they had consumed organophosphate poison. These
statements, made contemporaneously by the deceased herself, carry great
evidentiary weight and cannot be brushed aside.

81. Moreover, three witnesses namely, Dr. Kalyansundaram (PW-32), Dr.
Saraschandra (PW-10) and A. Anitha (PW-16), all confirmed that they observed
no external injuries on the deceased’s body. The absence of injuries is significant
because strangulation ordinarily leaves tell-tale signs such as abrasions, bruises
or hemorrhages.

82. Taken together, these facts conclusively establish that the deceased was
conscious at the time of admission, bore no injuries consistent with strangulation
and herself disclosed poisoning. The argument of death by strangulation is
therefore ruled out.

Page 49 of 60


OVERWHELMING OCULAR AND MEDICAL EVIDENCE PROVES DEATH
DUE TO POISONING

83. Having ruled out strangulation, the Court turns to the actual cause of death.
A wealth of ocular and medical evidence points to poisoning. The materials on
record, when examined holistically, leave no room for doubt that the deceased
died due to consumption of organophosphate poison, specifically Nuvacron.
84. Dr. Laxmi Kanthaiah (PW-13) of CARE Hospital has deposed that the
deceased had informed her in the ICU that she had consumed poison which was
some sort of pesticide. Dr. Kalyanasundram (PW-32) of CARE Hospital has
deposed that when he was informed that the deceased and the Appellant-Accused
had consumed poison he had asked his junior resident doctors to secure the
container of the poison through the relative of the persons. Dr. Kalyanasundram
(PW-32) has further deposed that after about two hours the friends of the
Appellant-Accused had shown him the poison container which was marked as
M.O.1 which contained Nuvacron poison. Dr. Saraschandra (PW-10) of CARE
Hospital has deposed that Ex. P-17 & P-18 prepared at the time of admission
mentioned that the deceased and the Appellant-Accused had consumed
Organophosphate poison and the entire line of treatment in the hospital was on
that basis. Even, Investigating Officer (PW-24) has deposed that the mother of
the deceased and appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.894-895 of 2012 and the uncle
of the deceased had informed him that the deceased had consumed poison.

85. Also, the death summary prepared by CARE Hospital mentions the cause
th
of death as Organophosphate poison. Even, the postmortem report dated 25
February 2002 prepared by Dr. B. Muni Swamy records that the stomach of the
deceased contained 150 ml. yellowish brown liquid with thick consistency and an
abnormal odor with the congested mucosa.

86. Additionally, the AP FSL upon a chemical analysis of viscera and stomach
th
wash of the deceased had stated in its report dated 27 February 2002 that it had
Page 50 of 60


found Organophosphate, an insecticide poison, in all the body pieces and liquids
forwarded to it for examination.

87. Further, Mr. R.K. Sarine (PW-26), CFSL Hyd., confirmed the presence of
Monocrotophos in the items sent to FSL. Dr. M. Narayana Reddy (PW-31)
th
reiterated his opinion given in three-member Expert Committee report dated 09
March 2002 that death was caused by poison. Dr. D.N. Baradwaj (PW-33),
Additional Professor Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS stated that
considering all the documents provided, the observations recorded in PME report
th
dated 25 February 2002 prepared by Dr. B. Muni Swamy did not appear to be
indictive of manual strangulation as the congestion in the brain and abdominal
organs, as found in the present case, is found in cases of Organophosphate
poisoning.

88. Consequently, the convergence of multiple independent expert opinions
lends overwhelming credibility to the conclusion that the deceased died of
poisoning.

OFFENCE OF RAPE AGAINST APPELLANT-ACCUSED IS NOT MADE OUT
89. Two separate and independent laboratory reports, namely, report by AP

th th
FSL dated 27 February 2002 and report by CFSL, New Delhi dated 20 May
2002 on analysis of cotton swabs forwarded in sealed bottles concluded that
Semen and Spermatozoa were not detected thereon.

th
90. Though the CDFD report dated 24 April 2002 stated that cotton swab
contained two fractions i.e. female fraction and male fraction and the male
fraction of Exhibit A (Part of Cotton Swab) contained DNA of a human male
th
individual, yet CDFD in its subsequent report dated 13 May, 2002 concluded
upon STR analysis that the biological fluid present on the cotton swab of the
deceased did not match with the DNA profiles of the person whom the mother of
the deceased (i.e. Appellant herein in Criminal Appeal Nos.894-895 of 2012)
Page 51 of 60


suspected to be involved in alleged rape of the deceased, which included the DNA
profile of the Appellant-Accused.

91. This Court is of the view that non-production of CDFD report before the
Courts below is immaterial, insofar as, it does not reveal the commission of rape
and murder as alleged by mother of the deceased and Appellant in Criminal
Appeal Nos.894-895 of 2012. The CDFD report is in fact exculpatory qua the
Appellant-Accused insofar as it concludes that male DNA strand in the cotton
swab did not match with the samples taken from the accused or any of the persons
suspected by the mother of the deceased and Appellant in Criminal Appeal
Nos.894-895 of 2012.

th
92. Additionally, the three-member Expert Committee Report dated 09
March 2002 recorded that it was not possible to identify from a naked eye
examination whether the fluid collected from the vagina was semen or vaginal
secretion and that clothes had been removed to facilitate the treatment. The three-
th
member Expert Committee also pointed out that postmortem report dated 25
February 2002 itself did not find any evidence of sexual assault prior to death,
inasmuch as, it did not find any bite marks on the lip, cheeks, neck or breast or
injury marks or scratch marks that are normally found in cases of sexual assault.

th
93. The AIIMS Committee of doctors has concluded in its report dated 16

July 2002 that, “Semen cannot be identified solely by naked eye examination.
Semen has a distinct smell when fresh, but smell is not a basis for its
identification. An Autopsy Surgeon is not competent to comment on the presence
of semen before subjecting the specimen to microscopic and histo-chemical
nd
tests.” Further, the AIIMS report dated 02 May 2002 records that FSL report
th
dated 27 February 2002 does not indicate any evidence of sexual assault in the
case.

Page 52 of 60


94. Also, Dr. Kalyanasundram (PW-32) of CARE Hospital has clarified to the
Investigating Officer (PW-24) that injuries found on the neck and the wrist of the
deceased had been caused during the course of treatment.

95. Consequently, in light of the deceased’s own statement, hospital records,
forensic reports and expert opinions, allegations of rape or murder are devoid of
legal or factual foundation.

AT THIS BELATED STAGE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ALLEGE THAT THE CAUSE
OF DEATH WAS RAPE AND STRANGULATION

96. It is also pertinent to mention that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had
monitored the investigation in Public Interest Litigations being W.P. Nos.4054
and 4329 of 2002 to which Dr. B. Muni Swamy, was a party. The High Court
after considering all facts, including, the affidavit filed by Dr. B. Muni Swamy as
well as CDFD report and status reports filed by CBI, was satisfied with the
investigation conducted by CBI and it was only thereafter that it closed the writ
petitions.
97. The mother of the deceased and Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.894-
895 of 2012 never filed any protest petition or sought further investigation. Even
in the present appeals, no pleading is forthcoming as to why the said steps were
not taken. Consequently, at this belated stage, allegations of rape and
strangulation cannot be revived.
DR. B. MUNI SWAMY HAD FURNISHED AN UNPROFESSIONAL
POSTMORTEM REPORT
98. This Court is of the opinion that non-examination of Dr. B. Muni Swamy
is immaterial as the subsequent three-member Expert Committee report and the
AIIMS Committee report, completely belies the postmortem report prepared by
him. The 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 and that Dr. B. Muni Swamy had prematurely given the
Page 53 of 60


findings of presence of semen on naked eye examination without waiting for the
FSL report.
99. In fact, the three-members Expert Committee of doctors appointed by the
State of Andhra Pradesh has commented adversely on the opinion given by Dr.
B. Muni Swamy. The three-members Expert Committee was of the view that Dr.
B. Muni Swamy had not only misinterpreted the therapeutic injuries as the
injuries caused by violence but had not exercised restraint before expressing his
opinion. This conduct of Dr. B. Muni Swamy demonstrates lack of professional
restraint and objectivity.
100. Even the AIIMS Committee of doctors was unanimous in its opinion that
Dr. B. Muni Swamy had misinterpreted the findings to conclude that the cause of
death was manual strangulation. The AIIMS Committee of doctors was of the
view that the opinion given by Dr. B. Muni Swamy suffered from an error of
judgment and the observations made by the Autopsy Surgeon did not appear to
be correct.
101. Pertinently, even though Dr. Krupal Singh was the duty doctor at the
mortuary, Dr. B. Muniswamy, Professor came to the mortuary on his own and
conducted postmortem. The duty roster revealed that Dr. Muniswamy was neither
on duty at the mortuary nor on call duty as Professor. This was revealed by Dr.
Rajgopal Reddy, HOD, Department of Forensic Medicine, who stated that Dr.
Muniswamy did not intimate or seek permission for conducting the postmortem.
102. Consequently, this Court concurs with the finding of the CBI that Dr. B.
Muni Swamy had furnished an erroneous and unprofessional postmortem report
in the present case and had gone to the press with premature sensational claims.
His actions were not only medically unsound but also irresponsible, as they
created unnecessary public controversy.

CONSEQUENCES OF PREMATURE AND DELIBERATE PUBLICATION
103. The premature and erroneous opinion of Dr. Muni Swamy unleashed a
wave of public controversy. Media reports amplified his conclusions, leading to
Page 54 of 60


widespread suspicion of investigators and calls for immediate action against
alleged perpetrators. This demonstrates how a single erroneous report, when
publicised prematurely, can distort public perception and derail the course of
justice.
104. This Court is of the view that the impact of a doctor issuing an erroneous
postmortem report and publicising it through the media goes far beyond
individual misconduct. It spreads misinformation, erodes trust in investigative
agencies and institutions such as the police and judiciary, prejudices public
opinion, traumatises the victim’s family, and undermines the 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
the sub judice rule, which restricts commentary on matters under judicial
consideration to preserve fairness and integrity.
105. The Court emphasises that 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 the 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 the truth, not popularity. Their independence is not a luxury but the
foundation of justice itself.
106. Consequently, this Court holds that the conduct of Dr. Muni Swamy in
furnishing an erroneous report, publicising it prematurely and thereby violating
professional ethics and the sub judice rule constitutes contempt of Court. It also
breaches medical ethics, which demand competence, honesty and diligence.
However, in view of his demise, this Court refrains from imposing any further
consequences.


Page 55 of 60


EVIDENCE OF PW-34 INSPIRES CONFIDENCE AND IS TRUSTWORTHY
107. The submission that Appellant-Accused is entitled to benefit of doubt
merely because of a purportedly faulty TIP is untenable. In the present case, G.
Anil Kumar (PW-34) and Anand Rao (PW-35) identified the accused in Court as
the person who purchased Nuvacron as well as knife and chocolates. It is pertinent
to mention that TIPs are primarily meant to give an assurance to the investigating
agency that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding in
the right direction. TIP or identification in Court is not sine qua non in every case
if from circumstances the guilt is otherwise established. The fact that a particular
witness has been able to identify the accused at an identification parade is only a
circumstance corroborative of the identification in Court.
108. This Court is of the view that the evidence of PW-34 with respect to

identification of the Appellant-Accused as the person who bought ‘Nuvacron’ on
rd
23 February 2002 inspires confidence. There is nothing on record to doubt his
deposition.
109. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the Appellant-Accused
that Ex. P-42 is not a reliable document as the said bill shows sale of three items
when allegedly the accused had purchased only a single item, is misconceived on
facts. A perusal of the deposition of G. Anil Kumar (PW-34) shows that he has
explained that all the three items mentioned in Ex. P-42 were not purchased by
the same person and that Ex.P-42 bill reflected consolidated daily sales for
accounting purposes, not a single transaction. His explanation is logical and
consistent with business practice and therefore the objection is rejected.

ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST APPELLANT-ACCUSED

110. Additionally, it is an admitted fact that both the deceased and the Appellant-
Accused consumed poison. It is also an admitted fact that both the deceased and
Appellant-Accused were seen outside the beauty parlor and thereafter seen
together in the hospital for their treatment. Since the deceased is no more, it was
for the Appellant-Accused to explain the circumstances in which the poison was
Page 56 of 60


purchased and consumed. In his Section 313 CrPC statement, the response of the
accused was that of complete denial. In fact, not only did the Appellant-Accused
denied being in a relationship with the deceased, but he also denied being
admitted in CARE Hospital, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No
explanation regarding the manner of purchase or consumption of pesticide was
forthcoming from the Appellant-Accused. It was not his case that the deceased or
some other person had purchased the poison for them or that either of them were
in possession of the poison prior to the date of the incident. Consequently, in the
circumstances, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the Appellant-
Accused. [See: Munna Kumar Upadhyay Alias Munna Upadhyaya vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh Through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,
1
(2012) 6 SCC 174 ; State of W.B. vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors., (2000) 8
2 3
SCC 382 ; RajKumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 353 ; Munish
4
Mubar vs, State of Haryana, (2012) 10 SCC 464 ]

DEFENCE OF ACCIDENTAL CONSUMPTION REJECTED
111. The accused’s contention that he consumed pesticide either accidentally or
with intent to threaten family members is implausible. As an engineering student,
he was expected to understand the lethal nature of pesticide. There is no evidence

1
“76. If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the court can draw an adverse
inference against him. In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the 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. In the present
case, the Court not only draws an adverse inference, but such conduct of the accused would also tilt the case in favour of the prosecution.”

2
“36. In this context we may profitably utilise the legal principle embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows: “When
any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
37. The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But the
section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding
the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation
which might drive the court to draw a different inference.”

3
“22. The accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statement under Section 313 CrPC regarding any incriminating material that has
been produced against him. If the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the court,
then the accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his statement under Section 313 CrPC is being
recorded. However, in such an event, the court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused
as may be permissible in accordance with law. (Vide Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh , Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana and Raj Kumar
Singh v. State of Rajasthan.”

4
31. …… It is obligatory on the part of the accused, while being examined under Section 313 CrPC to furnish some explanation with respect
to the incriminating circumstances associated with him, and the court must take note of such explanation, even in a case of circumstantial
evidence, so as to decide, whether or not, the chain of circumstances is complete…..”
Page 57 of 60


to suggest that he mistook pesticide for a harmless substance. His defence is
therefore rejected as unbelievable.

112. Pertinently, the pesticide Nuvacron is one of the highly toxic pesticides
available for purchase. It is the evidence of PW-34 that the accused came to the
shop and asked for Nuvacron, meaning thereby that the accused was likely aware
of the toxicity of the said pesticide and had purchased it with the knowledge that
ingesting the same will likely result in death.
ABETMENT BY PURCHASE OF NUVACRON
113. The offence of abetment is defined under Section 107 of the IPC, the same
is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“ 107. Abetment of a thing .—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy
for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance
of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes
or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.”


114. Also, in order to constitute abetment, the abettors must have intentionally
aided the commission of offence. Aiding can be construed as an act of
intentionally facilitating the commission of an offence.

115. In the present case, the Appellant-Accused has abetted the offence under
Section 306 of the IPC by purchasing the pesticide with the knowledge of its
lethal nature. Furthermore, in absence of any explanation by the accused as to
why the deceased and the accused consumed poison would lead to an adverse
inference that it was consumed with intent to commit suicide. Driving to the
hospital is a natural human conduct in face of death.
Page 58 of 60



INAPPLICABILITY OF VELLADURAI (SUPRA) TO THE PRESENT CASE
116. The judgment in Velladurai (supra) is not applicable to the present matter
as in the said case, the accused-husband had harassed the deceased-wife to the
extent that she was left with no option but to commit suicide. In the said case,
there were no allegations of aiding the deceased wife in commission of suicide.

SURVIVING PARTNER IN A MUTUAL SUICIDE PACT IS LEGALLY
CULPABLE

117. Notwithstanding the culpability of the act of purchasing pesticide, the
Accused’s participation in a suicide pact renders him culpable under Section 107
IPC. 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. 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.
118. This Court 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.
Page 59 of 60


119. Consequently, this Court holds that the accused’s conduct in entering into
and acting upon the suicide pact falls squarely within all the three situations
envisaged in Section 107 of the IPC. His participation directly facilitated the
deceased’s suicide. Notably, it is not his defence that the deceased was the
dominant personality who pressured him into the pact. His culpability therefore
stands established.

CONCLUSION
120. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasons, the present Appeals being bereft of
merits are dismissed, but with no order as to costs. The Appellant is directed to
surrender within four weeks.


…………………….J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]


……………….J.
[MANMOHAN]

New Delhi;
February 17, 2026

Page 60 of 60