The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 17) brought to a close one of the most protracted and emotionally charged legal battles in the Indian entertainment world by delivering its final judgment in the death case of Telugu-Tamil actress Prathyusha, whose untimely demise in 2002 had cast a long shadow over the film industry and the justice system.
The apex court’s verdict rejected petitions from both sides – from Prathyusha’s mother, who had fought for more than two decades seeking a harsher legal characterisation of her daughter’s death, and from Siddharth Reddy, the man convicted in connection with the case, who had challenged his conviction and sentence.
The core of the Supreme Court’s ruling was to uphold the existing legal position that Prathyusha died after consuming poison in an apparent suicide pact with Reddy. The court affirmed the evidence and the conviction for abetment of suicide, a charge that had been sustained through prior trials and appeals. In doing so, the bench categorically ruled out allegations that had been advanced over the years that Prathyusha was murdered by strangulation or sexually assaulted.
The judges observed that while the case had spanned 23 years and seen numerous twists, the available ocular and medical evidence consistently supported the conclusion that death was due to poisoning. The court also noted deficiencies and inconsistencies in certain forensic reports that had previously fuelled suspicion, including a post-mortem report by a doctor that had suggested strangulation but was ultimately not examined during the original trial.
The judgment was significant in that it turned back both the effort by Reddy to clear his name and the appeal by Prathyusha’s mother that sought to re-frame the legal understanding of the tragedy. Reddy’s initial sentence, originally five years, had been reduced by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 2011 to two years with an enhanced fine. He had approached the Supreme Court seeking acquittal, but the top court dismissed his petition, reaffirming the charge of abetment of suicide and ordering him to surrender to serve the sentence within four weeks of the judgment being pronounced.
For Prathyusha’s mother, the rejection of her plea was a bitter outcome. She had long maintained that her daughter’s death involved foul play beyond suicide, embracing theories of sexual assault and murder that had permeated public discussion of the case for years. The Supreme Court, however, found no legally sustainable basis to reopen the factual findings of earlier courts at such a late stage, especially in the absence of compelling new evidence. The bench emphasised that at the point when allegations of rape and strangulation were raised long after the fact, it was difficult to treat them as credible in the face of contrary medical and forensic material.
Prathyusha and Siddhartha Reddy were in love and had long wished to marry. While the actress’s mother accepted the relationship, Reddy’s mother opposed it, after which the couple decided to end their lives. They consumed poison in an attempt to commit suicide; Prathyusha was declared dead at the hospital, while Reddy survived.
Analysts and legal observers noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the challenges inherent in trying to undo long-settled factual conclusions in criminal matter after more than two decades. The case had already passed through a trial court, the High Court and numerous appeals, consuming years of hearings and review. By affirming the conviction and rejecting the broader spectrum of allegations, the Supreme Court has effectively drawn a line under a chapter that has been a source of anguish for the deceased actress’s family and followers.
The emotional weight of the judgment was reflected in reactions from those who have followed the case since the early 2000s. For some, the ruling brings a measure of finality and legal closure after years of uncertainty; for others, especially supporters of Prathyusha’s mother, it will not end deeper doubts about the circumstances of her death. From a legal standpoint, however, the court’s emphasis on evidentiary standards and the limits of revisiting settled questions sets an important example for how similar long-drawn cases are treated at the highest level of the judiciary.
The directive for Reddy to surrender within four weeks will now set in motion the next procedural phase, as authorities prepare to enforce the sentence upheld by the Supreme Court. Whether this will satisfy those still seeking broader accountability remains to be seen, but as of Tuesday afternoon, the court has delivered its decisive and final word on a case that has spanned more than two decades and evoked persistent public and media attention.