Case Analysis - State Of Kerala Vs. Greeshma @ Sreekutty & Others
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
CASE
ANALYSIS
STATE OF KERALA VS. GREESHMA @ SREEKUTTY & OTHERS Snega S, PG Law Student, LL.M - Criminal Law, B.S Abdur Rahman Crescent Institute of Science and Technology – Vandalur, Chennai
INTRODUCTION
In Kerala, Greeshma, a 22-year-old woman, was accused of murdering Sharon, 23-year-old on October 2022. she was allegedly in a romantic relationship with him and subsequently engagement with Satheesh, a army person. Then end the relationship, laced an ayurvedic concoction with administered it to Sharon at her residence in Tamil Nadu's Kanyakumari district. Sharon subsequently suffered multiple organ failure and passed away on October 25,
2022. In January 2025, the Additional Sessions Court in Neyyattinkara convicted Greeshma
of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to death, describing the act as "extremely brutal, gruesome, and revolting. " Now, the appealed by Greeshma pending before the Kerala High Court. This case has garnered significant public attention due to its intricate details and the severe penalties imposed, highlighting critical issues related to media influence on legal proceedings, and the woman’s rights and concept of rarest of rare case in criminal convictions. TITLE OF THE CASE: The State of Kerala Vs. Greeshma @ Sreekutty & others In the Court of the Additional District & Session at Neyyattinkarar S. C No: 764 / 2023 Judgement On: 20th January 2025 OBJECT OF THE STUDY: Understand the justice delivery system is the objective of this research in order to assist individuals in the rarest circumstances in society.
The current case is influenced by the criminal offenses that extended to the family. According to an Indian statistics report, misunderstandings and a lack of monitoring support were the main causes of current problems among couples. This study focuses on how, given the current situation, the rarest instance that the Honourable Court has declared must be contested.
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
This is a descriptive study based on primary and secondary data and facts from the judgement, journals, articles as well as from websites. Analysis has been done with relevant facts and data to reach over some conclusions. FACT OF THE CASE: Greeshma and Sharon Raj fell in love in 2021, but she got engaged to Satheesh in March 2022, leading to their breakup. She later rekindled the relationship. They underwent a marriage ceremony and stayed together at a hotel in July 2022. As her wedding neared, Greeshma tried to poison Sharon with drug-laced juice, but he didn’t drink it. She continued the relationship, luring him with promises of intercourse. Greeshma researched paraquat poisoning and prepared a deadly concoction using Kapiq herbicide and herbal medicine. On 14. 10. 2022, she invited Sharon home under false pretences, where she had hidden the poison.
Inside her bedroom, she challenged Sharon to drink the poisoned kashayam, masking the taste with Frooti. Sharon left her house and began vomiting greenish fluid. His friend took him home, and later to a hospital. He was first treated at Government Hospital, then shifted to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. His condition worsened, leading to kidney failure and dialysis. Sharon confided in his father about his relationship with Greeshma and the poisoned drink. After days of struggle, Sharon succumbed to organ failure and died on 25. 10. 2022 at 5:55 p. m. DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED: Greeshma and Sharon were in a relationship since 2021, but under family pressure, she got engaged to Satheesh on 4. 03. 2022. Neither family knew about her relationship with Sharon, and they planned to elope in November. On 13. 10.
2022, Sharon visited Greeshma's house, got upset upon seeing her engagement album, and checked her phone. Despite her assurance that Satheesh knew and supported them, Sharon lost control and physically abused her but later consoled her. While Greeshma was in the bathroom, Sharon unknowingly drank a decoction she had prepared for her mother and later fell ill. Greeshma kept messaging Sharon to encourage him, but after 18. 10. 2022, there was no response. She denied the "juice challenge" and insisted she never invited him home. She also claimed that Sharon was conscious when giving his statement and did not accuse her. ISSUES ;-
1. Whether accused had motive to administer poison to Sharon Raj?
2. Whether first accused, abducted Sharon Raj by deceitful means from his house, J.P.
House, Samudayapattu, Parassala village on 14th October 2022 with intent to poison him and to commit murder?
3. Whether 1st accused with intention to commit murder of Sharon Raj caused hurt to his
internal organs by means of an ayurvedic concoction laced with herbicide, namely kapiq at her house?
COURT
ANALYSIS
The Additional Session Court of Neyyattinkarar held that compliance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maniyappan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1981 SCC 1220), In Machhi Singh . V. State of Punjab (AIR 1983 SC 957)and Bachan Singh. V state Of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 898) laid down that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. The court also explain that Manner of commission of the crime; The crime was committed with extreme brutality. Greeshma killed Sharon inch by inch, having previously failed in an attempt to poison him. She lured him with deceit, abducted him under the pretence of offering sex, and had premeditated his murder to avoid eloping with him. Despite not being convicted under Section 307 IPC for the earlier poisoning attempt, it highlights her repeated offenses. Her actions demonstrate extreme cruelty, making her undeserving of mercy.
Motive: motive was to murder Sharon by poisoning him, as she was already engaged to PW84 (Satheesh) and saw Sharon as an obstacle. She meticulously pre-planned his killing, considering it a "justified murder" driven by extreme malice. In both attempts, she deceived him—first while he unsuspectingly took her around on his bike and later by pretending love and offering sex. Antisocial or socially abhorrent nature of crime: Greeshma’s crime was socially abhorrent and repulsive. Despite being engaged to satheesh, she had relations with Sharon and even married him in May 2022. On 22. 08. 2022, she searched 23 times about drug toxicity before poisoning Sharon through a “juice challenge,” intending a slow and painful death. Her deliberate cruelty and intent to prolong suffering show extreme malice.
Such a crime provokes intense societal outrage and is deemed the rarest of rare cases, with no scope for reform. Magnitude of the crime: the murder by poisoning shocked society, sending a disturbing message that a girl can easily kill her boyfriend after a breakup. With the rise of livein relationships, treating such crimes lightly promotes a "use and throw" mentality, setting a dangerous precedent. Personality of a victim of murder: Sharon, a student and the same age as his assailant, deeply loved and blindly trusted Greeshma, who betrayed him. Even on his deathbed, he refused to accuse her, not wanting her punished. Despite knowing he was poisoned, he remained silent to doctors, showing his unwavering trust and love. Greeshma committed heinous crimes like murder by poisoning and abduction.
She enticed Sharon with a long call, offered sex, and sent intimate messages while preparing poison. Knowing it was paraquat, she never revealed it, even as desperately sought to save his brother. The death was caused by using 100% dangerous poison, kapiq herbicide, paraquat, which is hazardous to the life of human being. The presence of bleeding from the penis, as recorded in the postmortem certificate, indicates a direct consequence of severe brutality. The victim endured agonizing pain from his lips to his anus due to the effects of a corrosive poison. The following cases resulted in the awarding of the death penalty based on the principles outlined within them. When the collective conscience of society is profoundly shaken, the court is compelled to impose the death sentence.
The judgment characterized the crime as "extremely brutal, gruesome, diabolical, and revolting, deeming it among the "rarest of rare cases" that warranted capital punishment. VERDICT: ● Accused No. 1 (Greeshma) is sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a ₹1,00,000 fine for offence U/S 364 IPC; in default, 1-year simple imprisonment. ● She is sentenced to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a ₹50,000 fine for offence U/S 328 IPC; in default, 6 months of simple imprisonment. ● She is sentenced to death U/S 302 IPC and shall be hanged till death, with a ₹2,00,000 fine; in default, recovery will follow legal procedures. APPEAL: Following the conviction, Greeshma appealed to the Kerala High Court, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction and alleging that the investigation was "highly sensationalized," leading to a "vilification campaign" against her.
She also contended that there was no scientific evidence proving Sharon's death resulted from poisoning. In February 2025, the High Court admitted her appeal and suspended her uncle's sentence pending further proceedings.
AUTHORS COMMENTS:
ANALYSIS
OF THE JUDGEMENT i) The "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine: Established in the landmark judgment of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court of India held that the death penalty should be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases, where the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. a) The death penalty should only be imposed in the most severe cases involving extreme culpability. b) Before considering capital punishment, both the circumstances of the offender and the nature of the crime must be carefully evaluated. Life imprisonment should be the standard punishment, while the death sentence should be an exception. It should only be awarded when life imprisonment is clearly insufficient given the gravity of the crime and when no other punishment seems appropriate after considering all relevant factors.
So, The young age of the convict and her lack of prior offenses indicate a potential for rehabilitation. The Court has emphasized that the possibility of reform should be a significant consideration before imposing the death penalty. Suggesting that a rehabilitative approach might be more suitable, there is also concern about the impact of media trials on the judiciary. This raises apprehensions about a growing tendency where courts could be swayed by public opinion, possibly compromising the fundamental principles of justice. ii) Women and Capital Punishment – A Rare Phenomenon Historically, courts have been reluctant to sentence women to death, considering factors like societal conditioning, perceived vulnerability, and the notion that women are traditionally less violent offenders.
However, when a woman commits a heinous crime, the legal system must balance gender sensitivity with equal application of justice. Some may argue that awarding a death sentence to a woman contradicts the belief that women are the "weaker sector" of society. However, legal justice should be gender-neutral. If a crime meets the "rarest of the rare" standard (as per Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab), then gender should not be a shield. From this viewpoint, punishing a woman differently solely because of her gender undermines the principle of equality. From a feminist perspective, this case challenges the notion that women are only victims and not perpetrators. However, society often views female criminals through a harsher lens. A woman committing a brutal crime is often seen as more shocking than a man doing the same, leading to harsher judgment from both courts and society.
Does this sentencing reflect true equality, or is it an example of patriarchal bias shifting against women when they break traditional roles? Historically, women have been viewed as the "nurturing" and "weaker" gender. Some argue that sentencing a woman to death challenges this stereotype, proving that women are capable of both great good and great evil, just like men. However, others believe women should be given more chances for reform due to their historically disadvantaged position. The society take double standards. Public opinion tends to be more sympathetic toward women criminals than men, especially when personal history, mental health, or societal factors come into play. Some may feel that executing a woman is too harsh, while others see it as an important statement of gender-neutral justice. True gender equality means equal accountability under the law.
If Greeshma committed a brutal crime, her gender should not protect her from the harshest punishment. They may call for life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, allowing for rehabilitation.
CONCLUSION
The State of Kerala vs. Greeshma @ Sreekutty case serves as a focal point for examining the balance between retributive and reformative justice within India's legal system. It underscores the need for a nuanced approach that considers the potential for offender rehabilitation, the consistency of capital punishment application, and the broader societal implications of such verdicts. From a woman's perspective, this case sparks debate about justice, gender neutrality, and societal attitudes toward female offenders. this case raises many moral and ethical questions. for rehabilitation over execution, especially given the larger context of how women are treated in society. As the case progresses through appeals, it presents an opportunity for the judiciary to reflect on these critical issues and potentially set precedents that align with the principles of justice and human rights.
REFERENCES
Books:
1 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
History & Rationale by Adv.Swapanpreet Kaur
2) GENDERING CRIMINOLOGY by Shelly Clevenger Jordana N.Navarro
Journals:
1) The American Journal of Criminal Justice
2) Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research
3) Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law
4) ILE Weekly Review
Website’s:
1) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120400583/
2) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/652e1a5872480234280e0799
3) https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-greeshmaappeal-suspension-of-sentence-283141 4) https://www.barandbench.com/news/sharon-raj-murder-kerala-high-court-issuesnotice-state-greeshmas-appeal-death-penalty 5) https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/sharon-murder-case-why-the-courtawarded-24-year-old-greeshma-the-death-sentence