Kerala: Greeshma's death sentence sparks debate on human rights and true justice

Greeshma was sentenced to death for the premeditated murder of her boyfriend, Sharon Raj, making her the youngest woman in Kerala to receive such a sentence.

This case has not only fanned public curiosity but has also reignited discussions about the implications, violation of human rights and the morality of the death penalty in contemporary society.

No leniency

Greeshma is the second woman in the history of Kerala to be awarded the death penalty. Rafeeqa Beevi, a 60-year-old woman from Neyyattinkara was the first to be sent to the death row. Interestingly it was the same judge, A M Basheer who pronounced both the judgements.

In Greeshma’s case, the court observed that she was proven guilty under four sections of the IPC and she deserved 'no leniency'.

She has been sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment for the offence of kidnapping/abducting to murder (section 364 IPC) and five years of imprisonment for the offence under section 201 IPC. Additionally, the court has convicted Greeshma's maternal uncle, Nirmalakumaran Nair, under section 201 IPC for destruction of evidence, sentencing him to three years of imprisonment.

Also read: Kerala: 24-year-old Greeshma gets death for killing boyfriend Sharon Raj

Heinous crime

Greeshma's crime was particularly heinous; she poisoned Sharon by mixing a lethal substance into an Ayurvedic concoction, leading to his tragic demise after a prolonged suffering period. The court's decision to impose the death penalty was based on the nature of the crime, which was deemed unprovoked and brutal. The judge emphasised that such actions warranted the maximum punishment available under law, dismissing arguments regarding Greeshma's young age and lack of prior criminal history as insufficient arguments to mitigate her culpability.

The investigation into Sharon's murder revealed a chilling level of premeditation. According to the prosecution, Greeshma had been plotting to eliminate Sharon for quite some time, presumably after she met and became engaged to a soldier.

Sharon, however, was unwilling to end their relationship. Greeshma attempted to give him juice mixed with allopathic tablets under the guise of participating in a then-popular online challenge of drinking an entire bottle of juice. However, the plan failed when Sharon detected a foul taste and spat it out.

Greeshma had reportedly researched methods to poison someone and even attempted to cover her tracks by deleting her search history. This calculated approach highlighted not only her intent but also raised questions about the psychological state that could lead someone to commit such an act against a loved one.

Inconsistent application of death penalty

Interestingly, Greeshma's sentencing occurred on the same day the Kolkata RG Kar Medical College rape accused was sentenced to life imprisonment by a Kolkata court, sparking off discussions about the inconsistent application of the death penalty.

Critics argued that such inconsistencies reflect systemic biases, leading to unfair outcomes. Greeshma’s case highlighted these concerns; while some consider her sentence a fair delivery of justice, others see it as emblematic of a flawed system that overlooks deeper societal issues.

“The death penalty is barbaric and does not align with the democratic and humanitarian values that modern humans have achieved. A punishment based on 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' is not appropriate. Our judiciary is not obligated to satisfy public sentiment. In the 1980 Bachan Singh case, the Supreme Court outlined how to differentiate 'rarest of rare' cases. Punishment is not about vengeance,” said C Shukkur, a lawyer and actor based in Kasargod.

Also read: Explained: All about Bengal’s Aparajita Bill that proposes death sentence for rape convicts

Double standards

The death sentence has sparked discussions not only among anti-death penalty activists but also within a section of feminists. They rightly pointed out that several men accused of killing their girlfriends have escaped the noose, highlighting a disparity in judicial outcomes. This case, they argued, reflected a tendency for courts to align with public sentiments and media-driven narratives rather than ensuring consistent and unbiased justice.

“There have been more than ten cases in recent years where girls were killed by various means, ranging from acid attacks to shootings, often by estranged lovers who relentlessly stalked them. Yet, none of these perpetrators have received the death penalty. This highlights the glaring double standards in our system,” said Megha Nair, a law student from Kochi.

The media coverage surrounding Greeshma's case has been extensive, illustrating how public sentiment can shift dramatically in response to high-profile crimes. Many people expressed outrage over the brutality of her actions while simultaneously questioning whether executing her will truly serve justice or merely satisfy a societal thirst for retribution.

There were reports circulating on some online media platforms suggesting that Greeshma claimed she would be released after serving a 14-year sentence. Many legal experts believed that such sensationalised reportage could have influenced the judgment.

Some activists also see a caste angle in this ‘honour killing', incidentally carried out by the girlfriend herself, given that Greeshma is from an upper caste and Sharon hailed from a lower strata of society. The involvement of her family members added to this observation as her mother and uncle were aware of her efforts to get rid of Sharon from her life, according to the prosecution.

Greeshma's death sentence has once again opened up critical discussions about justice, morality, and the efficacy of capital punishment in contemporary society.

As debates continue among lawmakers, legal experts, and citizens alike, it is clear that this issue transcends individual cases; essentially it touches upon the fundamental questions of human rights, societal values and what constitutes true justice.