STATE OF KERALA VS. GREESHMA & OTHERS

Case Name	State of Kerala vs. Greeshma & Others
Date of Judgement	20th January 2025
Case No	SC No. 764/2023
Case Type	Sessions Case
Petitioner	State of Kerala, Represented by DYSP, Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram Rural
Respondent	1. Greeshma @ Sreekkutty, D/o Sindhu, Sreenilayam, Poomballikkonam, Melppaladesom, Deviyodu Village, Kanyakumari District 2. Sindhu, D/o Savithri, Sreenilayam Veedu, Poomballikonam, Melppaladesom, Deviyode Village, Kanyakumari District 3. Nirmala Kumaran Nair, S/o Krishnapillai, Sreenilayam Veedu, Poomballikonam, Melppaladesom, Deviyode Village, Kanyakumari District
Bench	Sri. A.M. Basheer, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara
Statues Referred	Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 364: Abduction, Section 328: Causing hurt by means of poison, Section 302: Murder, Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence, Section 203: Giving false information, Section 34: Common intention Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Section 209: Commitment of case to Sessions Court, Section 227: Discharge of the accused, Section 313: Examination of the accused, Section 428: Setoff of the period of detention Section 235(1): Acquittal or conviction Section 357A: Victim compensation

Introduction

The case of State of Kerala vs. Greeshma & Others pertains to the purported murder of Sharon Raj by his romantic associate, Greeshma, via poisoning. It is alleged that Greeshma, confronted with the possibility of marrying another man, orchestrated Sharon’s demise by deceitfully enticing him to her home and administering a lethal mixture containing herbicide. The prosecution utilised digital evidence, forensic reports, and witness testimonies to corroborate allegations of premeditation, previous attempts to harm Sharon, and efforts to conceal the crime, implicating her family members. The case was adjudicated at the Neyyattinkara Sessions Court by Additional District & Sessions Judge Sri A.M. Basheer, involving allegations of murder, abduction, administering poison to inflict injury, and destruction of evidence, pursuant to multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It underscores the intricacies of establishing intent and motive in a case predominantly reliant on circumstantial evidence.

Facts of the Case

Greeshma and Sharon Raj were in a romantic relationship from October 2021 until their separation following Greeshma’s engagement to Satheesh in March 2022.

Despite the engagement, Greeshma pretended to reconcile with Sharon and vowed to marry him, resulting in ongoing interactions, including a ceremonial marriage.

As her wedding date with Satheesh neared, Greeshma aimed to eliminate Sharon, apprehensive about the revelation of their relationship.

Greeshma investigated poisoning techniques, formulated a mixture utilising paraquat (a hazardous herbicide), and enticed Sharon to her residence on October 14, 2022, under the guise of reviving their relationship.

Sharon ingested the poisoned kashayam administered by Greeshma and commenced vomiting immediately. His condition deteriorated, resulting in hospitalisation and eventual death on October 25, 2022.

Greeshma initially deceived Sharon’s family and authorities by asserting that the mixture was an ayurvedic remedy, seeking to obliterate evidence and obscure her participation.

Digital evidence, such as call logs and internet queries, substantiated her intentions and actions preceding Sharon’s demise.

Greeshma’s mother and uncle were implicated for assisting in the concealment of evidence by retrieving and concealing the poison bottle.

Sharon’s dying declaration, witness testimonies, and forensic and medical evidence corroborated the administration of poison and established Greeshma’s intent to commit murder.

Issue Raised

• A jurisdictional inquiry concerning the court’s authority to adjudicate the case, given that the offence purportedly transpired across state lines (Kerala and Tamil Nadu).
• Whether the deceptive abduction of the victim, Sharon Raj, constituted an offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
• If the accused, Greeshma, possessed the poison (paraquat), had the intent, and the opportunity to administer it.
• Determining if the deceased, Sharon Raj, succumbed as a direct result of the poison administered by Greeshma.
• Whether the actions of the accused, including deceptive statements and efforts to obliterate evidence, constituted offences under Sections 201 and 203 of the Indian Penal Code.
• To ascertain whether the coaccused (Greeshma’s mother and uncle) participated in the concealment of evidence and the protection of the principal accused.
• Analysis of circumstantial evidence to ascertain motive, preparation, and execution of the crime.
• The relevance of forensic, digital, and medical evidence in substantiating the charges against the defendant.
• Whether the defendant’s conduct prior to and subsequent to the crime exhibited her culpability and intent.

Judgement

The primary defendant, Greeshma, was adjudicated guilty of violations under Sections 364, 328, 302, and 203 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the tertiary defendant was convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The second defendant was exonerated pursuant to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Greeshma received a death sentence under Section 302 of the IPC, pending confirmation by the High Court of Kerala. Supplementary sentences encompassed stringent incarceration for alternative offences with concurrent durations.

The court recognised that Greeshma fraudulently persuaded the victim, Sharon, to come to her residence, where she administered a mixture containing poison (paraquat herbicide), resulting in his demise due to extensive internal organ damage.

The motive was identified as Greeshma’s desire to eliminate Sharon because of her engagement to another person, despite maintaining her relationship with Sharon.

A plethora of evidence, comprising call records, WhatsApp messages, forensic analyses, witness testimonies, and medical reports, corroborated the prosecution’s case.

The defense’s assertion of jurisdictional errors was rejected as the court affirmed its authority under Section 181(2) CrPC, given that the abduction occurred within its jurisdiction.

The evidence of previous attempts to harm the victim, efforts to obstruct the investigation, and actions to eliminate evidence reinforced the court’s ruling.

Compensation was allocated to the victim’s parents via victim compensation programs, in conjunction with penalties levied on the accused.

Analysis

The case pertains to the poisoning and demise of Sharon Raj, with Greeshma (A1) as the principal suspect.

The prosecution demonstrated motive, preparation, and execution of the crime, citing Greeshma’s intent to eliminate Sharon due to her engagement with another individual, Satheesh.

The relationship between Sharon and Greeshma, characterised by duplicity and manipulation, was pivotal to the case.

The evidence comprised circumstantial details, digital communications (WhatsApp messages, call records), CCTV footage, and medical reports.

The court emphasised that Greeshma employed fraudulent tactics to lure Sharon to her residence, where she administered poison concealed as ayurvedic medicine (kashayam).

Greeshma’s online enquiries regarding poisoning techniques and her subsequent efforts to eliminate evidence (erasing messages, hiding poison) substantiated the prosecution’s assertions.

The accounts of Sharon’s acquaintances, relatives, and the autopsy results offered essential corroboration for the prosecution’s case.

The court rejected the defense’s assertions regarding jurisdictional matters and determined the accused’s guilt based on a series of circumstantial evidence and forensic validation.

The court underscored the importance of following the “five golden principles” in cases involving circumstantial evidence, thereby ensuring a coherent and persuasive narrative.

Greeshma’s previous effort to injure Sharon with paracetamol underscored her intent, premeditation, and advancement towards the lethal act.

The court recognised deficiencies in the defense’s argument, notably the absence of credible evidence to refute the prosecution’s assertions.

The ruling demonstrated meticulous evaluation of legal doctrines, factual contexts, and technical evidence, ultimately enforcing severe penalties on the culpable parties.

Conclusion

The court determined that the primary defendant, Greeshma, perpetrated the offences specified under Sections 364, 328, 302, 201, and 203 in conjunction with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Greeshma, motivated by personal interests, deceitfully lured Sharon Raj to her residence and administered poison disguised as an ayurvedic remedy, leading to his demise. The court utilised circumstantial evidence, comprising call records, digital evidence, and witness testimony, to establish the intent and premeditation of the act. Greeshma’s previous attempts to injure Sharon, her deliberate efforts to obscure evidence, and her attempts to misdirect the investigation were pivotal in establishing her culpability.  The involvement of her co-accused, who assisted in the destruction of evidence, further substantiated the prosecution’s case of conspiracy and shared intent. The court imposed a death sentence on Greeshma under Section 302 IPC, pending confirmation by the High Court, in addition to other concurrent sentences for related offences. The ruling highlighted the thorough investigation and the dependence on a blend of forensic, digital, and testimonial evidence to achieve the conviction. This case highlights the necessity of delivering justice for victims of premeditated offences while maintaining procedural protections during trials.

References

Muhammed Iqbal v Station House Officer, Manjeshwar Police Station [2018] KHC 752.

Buddhadev Saha v State of West Bengal [2023] KHC 6852.

Mahabir Mandal v State of Bihar [1972] KHC 430.

Mannu Sao v State of Bihar [2010] KHC 4524.

State of HP v Jeet Singh [1999] KHC 451.

Balvir Singh v State of Uttarakhand [2023] KHC 6894.

Prahlad v State of Rajasthan [2018] KHC 6905.

Munna Kumar Upadhyaya v State of Andhra Pradesh [2012] KHC 4315.

Shanmughan v State of Kerala [2012] KHC 4056.

Anant Chintaman Lagu v State of Bombay [1960] KHC 627.

Jaipal v State of Haryana [2003] KHC 732.

Hariprasad v State of Chhattisgarh [2023] KHC Online 6980.

Darshan Singh v State of Punjab [2024] KHC Online 6017.

Randeep Singh v State of Haryana [2024] KHC Online 6647.

Allarakha Habib Memon v State of Gujarat [2024] KHC Online 6421.

Rajendra alias Raju v State of Maharashtra [AIR 2002 SC 3390].