Greeshma’s Death Sentence: One of The Rarest of Rare Cases

About the Author

This Article is written by Hasnath K.H. She has completed her 5 year integrated B.Com LL.B from Government Law College, Ernakulam. She is currently practising law in Muvattupuzha Court Complex. She is also an editor trainee at ljrfvoice.com

Introduction:

This article examines a sentence from the State v. Greeshma murder case. The court precisely details Greeshma’s carefully planned actions and the subsequently inflicted deep violence and huge suffering experienced by the victim. The judgment reviews several relevant Supreme Court precedents on the death penalty, considering all aggravating and reducing circumstances. The court sentenced Greeshma to death, deeming her crime an exceptionally egregious case meeting the “rarest of rare cases” standard for capital punishment. The decision emphatically points out the exceptionally brutal and thoroughly premeditated nature of the crime, in a way that considerably exceeds any reducing factors offered by the defense.

Case Summary:

This is the parachute judgement of the sentence of case against Greeshma, who was convicted for the murder of Sharon. The judgment explains the court’s reasons for award of the death sentence and held the crime as being in the category of “rarest of rare cases”. It considers ameliorative and aggravating factors, and finds the latter canon in overwhelming numbers.

“Rarest of Rare Cases” Justification:

• The crux of the judgment is this: The crime committed by Greeshma is within the meaning of a “rarest of rare case” and in such a situation, imposition of death penalty is warranted and by no means can she be sentenced to life sentence which has been the rule in cases of crimes of this nature. The judge goes to great length to examine precedent legal cases (for example, Machhi Singh v. state of Punjab, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab) that provide the framework for consideration of the death penalty. The court emphasizes that “imprisonment for life is the rule and death sentence the exception.”
• The judgment states: “death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an inadequate punishment and having regard to the exceptional circumstances of the crime I am inclined to imposes maximum punishment.”

Aggravating Circumstances – The Brutality and Deceit:

• Manner of the Crime: The court highlights the “extremely brutal” nature of the murder, describing how Greeshma “killed Sharon inch by inch” through poisoning. The judge also notes the pre-planning, deceit, and repeated attempts to murder Sharon, first with paracetamol and then with paraquat, a hazardous herbicide.
• Motive: Greeshma’s motive is described as “extreme malice,” stemming from her desire to marry another person (PW84) and eliminate Sharon as an obstacle. The court notes her meticulous pre-planning to kill him lest he hinder her marriage plans. The judgment also points out her efforts to dispose of incriminating evidence.
• Anti-social Nature: The court stresses the socially abhorrent nature of the crime: “It is socially abhorrent nature of crime because it is so repulsive and provokes intense anger in the community. Such a person can not be reformed. The concept of socially abhorrent crime is rarest of rare case.” The court notes that Greeshma engaged in sexual relationships with Sharon, even while engaged to another man, and that she married Sharon and later poisoned him. The court also emphasizes her efforts to prolong the victim’s suffering with gruesome methods.
• Magnitude of Crime: The judge emphasizes the crime’s shock to society, noting its potential to encourage a “use and throw” attitude in relationships and the way a girl could kill her boyfriend.
• Personality of the Victim: The judgment emphasizes Sharon’s innocence, his deep love and trust in Greeshma, and his reluctance to accuse her, even on his deathbed, highlighting the betrayal and abuse of trust. The court notes, “Even at the death bed or while giving dying declaration to Magistrate he stated that he has no complaint against Greeshma because he did not want to punish her. Sharon knew that he was poisoned and cheated by Greeshma, but he did not disclose about it to number of doctors who attended him at various hospitals.” There was also the factor of caste and community involved, with the perpetrator being from a forward community and the victim from a backward class.

Aggravating Circumstances – Planning and Execution:

• Premeditation: The court meticulously details Greeshma’s premeditation, citing her searches about the effects of poison, her attempts at slow poisoning and also with a more potent dose of poison, and her plan to eliminate Sharon so she could marry another man. The judgment states, “She researched at length about the impact of poison on both the occasions and her every move were well planned.”
• Deceit and Betrayal: The judgment highlights how Greeshma feigned love, engaged in a sexual relationship with Sharon and even went through a marriage ceremony with him, all while planning his murder. The court states, “The convict managed to regain confidence after falsely agreeing to go through a marriage ceremony at his house and she offered sex etc. All these were believed by the victim as true love. Trusting her words, he was compelled to move from his house as enticed by deceitful means.” The court also emphasizes she continued sending intimate messages while preparing the poison.
• Inhumane Treatment: The court notes that Sharon was deprived of water for 11 days while suffering from the effects of the poison. The judge points out how Greeshma took advantage of their live-in relationship to breach Sharon’s trust.

Mitigating Circumstances – Rejected by the Court:

• Age: While Greeshma’s age is considered, the court notes both victim and perpetrator were of the same age, negating the mitigating effect. The court prioritizes justice for Sharon’s family. The judgment notes, “Age of the victim is not the sole criteria for death penalty. Both convict and victim were of the same age at the time of commission of offence and hence convict is not entitled for the benefit of age. I must also see the other side , bereaved family of the victim.”
• Mental Disturbance: The court finds no evidence of mental or emotional disturbance. Greeshma is portrayed as cool and calculating, pretending love. The judge noted, “She was cool. She pretended love. It was the paraquat which boiling but not her heart.” The court dismisses her alleged suicide attempt as a farce.
• Rehabilitation: The court deemed Greeshma as unreformable, pointing to her previous attempt to poison Sharon and her potential danger to society. The judgment states, “There is no guarantee that she will not mix poison again in any other relationship , if she got mixed with society.”
• Circumstantial Evidence: The court refutes the argument that a death penalty cannot be given in a case that relies on circumstantial evidence. The judgment states that the “48 unimpeachable circumstances” link in a complete chain establishing Greeshma’s guilt. The court emphasizes the significance of the digital and forensic evidence collected by the police.

Application of Legal Principles:

• The court refers to various Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Ram Naresh v. State of Chhattisgarh, Shankar Kishanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra ) to justify the aggravating circumstances.
• The court employs the “crime test,” “criminal test,” and “Rarest of Rare Cases Test” (RR test), ultimately concluding that the aggravating factors and the societal abhorrence of the crime justify the death penalty. The judgment states, “the aggravating circumstances (crime test) have to be fully satisfied and there should be no mitigating circumstance (criminal test) favouring the accused. Even if both the tests are satisfied as against the accused, then the Court has to finally apply the Rarest of Rare Cases test (RR Test), which depends on the perception of the society”.

Impact on Society:

• The court emphasizes the need to respond to society’s “cry for justice.” The court states, “Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime”.
• The court notes the crime’s serious impact on social order, creating a sense of panic among lovers and friends. The judgment also indicates the importance of public expectation that “justice is done”.

Specific Sentences Imposed:

• Greeshma received the following sentences, all to run concurrently: 10 years imprisonment for abduction, 5 years imprisonment for administering poison, death sentence for murder, and 2 years imprisonment for providing false information to police.
• A fine was also imposed, with a total of 350,000 rupees payable to the victim’s parents (the majority of which was from the murder charge).
• Greeshma was sentenced to be “hanged by neck till she is dead”
• A third accused was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
• A second accused was acquitted.
• The death sentence is subject to confirmation by the High Court of Kerala.

Quotes Highlighting Key Points:

• “The motive was to commit murder by administration of poison because she already got engaged with PW84 and before the proposed date of marriage she meticulously pre-planned to finish Sharon lest he will be an obstacle in her life. The same is admitted as the convict call it as justified murder.”
• “The idea of Greeshma was to slow poisoning him and commit murder. Again, the convict actively sought to prolong the victim’s suffering, designed to cause extreme pain before death using gruesome methods , indicates cruel motive. It is socially abhorrent nature of crime because it is so repulsive and provokes intense anger in the community. Such a person can not be reformed. The concept of socially abhorrent crime is rarest of rare case.”
• “Herein the murder by poisoning shocked the conscience of the society which spread a message among youth that a girl can easily kill her boyfriend after having broken their relationship. Nowadays, the youths are following live in relationships . If it is viewed lightly, it is as good as use and throw and one can easily target his partner. It will send wrong message to society.”
• “Sharon never opposed and the subsequent messages sent by him to her will openly declare his heart was filled with love towards her till he breathed last.”
• “Greeshma searched, “how to retrieve deleted data” from her mobile phone. This was done when she smelt danger and when police asked her to appear for interrogation. It proves, she had deleted all the search history of paracetamol and paraquat and also the incriminating materials from her mobile phone and she wanted to confirm whether the Police could retrieve the deleted data.”
• “She pretended love. It was the paraquat which boiling but not her heart.”
• “This is a clear demonstration of exceptional depravity and extreme brutality towards a helpless boy.”
• “Greeshma cheated him several times and being a repeated offender, not entitled for mercy.”
• “In the circumstances, death sentence alone would be proper and legal.”
• ” The manner in which the murder was carried out in the present case is extremely brutal gruesome, diabolical and revolting as to shock the collective conscience of the community.”

Conclusion:

The sentencing judgment meticulously builds a case for the death penalty by highlighting the extreme brutality, pre-meditation, deceit, and lack of remorse demonstrated by Greeshma, while dismissing mitigating factors. It underscores the court’s obligation to respond to society’s sense of justice and the need for a severe punishment for a crime deemed to fall within the “rarest of rare” category. The judge acknowledges the complexity of the death penalty while finding it appropriate for the facts of the case. The case also highlights the successful use of scientific methods by the Kerala police to uncover the crime.