During sentencing, Special Public Prosecutor VS Vineethkumar argued for the death penalty, terming the crime as ‘extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical, revolting‘.
The defence counsel Sasthamangalam S Ajith Kumar attempted to present the situation as one where Greeshma acted under extreme pressure, particularly from Sharon who had allegedly been blackmailing her with intimate photographs.
He argued that Greeshma should not be given the death penalty, citing her young age, no prior criminal record and the responsibility she had towards her elderly parents.
Despite these arguments, the judge decided to award the death sentence, classifying the case as a ‘rarest of rare‘ scenario, where life imprisonment would be inadequate, as the brutality of the crime, combined with the victim’s prolonged suffering, made it deserving of the harshest punishment.
“He underwent treatment for 11 days. On a perusal of number of medical records it is discernible that he could not even drink a drop of water for days. He underwent dialysis for three days. He was consulted by number of doctors. All his internal organs were failed due to ingestion of paraquat,” the Court said.
The Court further highlighted the pivotal role of digital and forensic evidence in unraveling the crime.
“The God in the cloud saved the data of crime coupled with the scientific principle of Dr Edmond Locard that no one can leave the place of crime without leaving the trace of evidence. Greeshma carried the evidence with her in her mobile phone and she stored everything in the cloud.“
