Sharon Murder Case: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Accused Greeshma Seeking Transfer Of Trial From Kerala To Tamil Nadu

She had first moved an application before the Magistrate Court at Neyyatinkara, stating that the alleged offence of administering poison took place at her house in Nagarcoil district of Tamil Nadu and hence, courts there would have the jurisdiction to try the matter. Since the Magistrate dismissed her plea, she moved the Sessions court. Facing another dismissal, she had approached the High Court. The High Court had closed the matter on September 26 after both sides submitted that they would raise the issue of jurisdiction during the trial. She then approached the Apex Court seeking transfer.

"It is clear on the perusal of the aforesaid order that the petitioner give up the challenge before the High Court and sought for permission to raise the same question of jurisdiction in the course of trial which was granted by the High Court. Having failed to obtain orders from the High Court and having abandoned the point of jurisdiction it would be inappropriate to entertain the same question on a transfer petition. Since the High Court has left the question of jurisdiction open to be raised by the petitioner before the Sessions Court, there is no question of petitioner being prejudiced", the Apex Court said while dismissing Greeshma's plea. 

The accused persons have been charged under Section 364 (kidnapping or abducting to murder), 328 (causing hurt by poison), 302 (punishment for murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence and giving false evidence to screen offender), 203 (giving false information) and 34 (criminal act done in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Greeshma had contended in her plea that the Police report containing the dying declaration of the deceased clearly stated that the deceased came to her house to collect a record book. Without considering this, the police added Section 364 IPC (kidnapping) in the last minute to bring the case within the jurisdiction of Neyyattinkara.

“Section 364 IPC was added by the police at the last minute of the filing the Final Report because they were fully aware that according to allegations in the final report till then, the entire jurisdiction to try the offender took place beyond the jurisdiction of the Neyyattinkara Sessions Court. So, in order to avoid this difficulty, the police included the sec, 364 IPC also in the final report only to create a jurisdiction for the Neyyattinkara Sessions Judge,” Greeshma's plea stated.

It had also been urged by Greeshma that just because Sharon’s death occurred within the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram, that cannot be only consideration for deciding jurisdiction.

Greeshma had sought for transfer of trial to Kanyakumari stating that she is living with her family there and is financially dependent on her father. She has stated that the commute to Neyyatinkara is inconvenient and expense for her. She had also submitted in her plea that she apprehends physical harm at the hands of the family of the deceased.

The High Court had granted bail to Greeshma on 25th September. The High Court had found that Greeshma has co-operated with the investigation so far and that she was a first time offender and found that the chances of her interfering with the trial was remote.

Adv. Sriram Parakkat, Adv. Satheesh Mohanan, Adv. Noopur Dubey, Adv. Micheal Rao, Adv. Shivali Chaudhary, Adv. Vishnu Shankar appeared for the petitioner.

Case Title: Greeshma @Sreekutty V. State of Kerala, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 757/2023

Click here to read/download order