ICFAI UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

ICFAI LAW SCHOOL

Final Draft

Project Topic: “Case Comment on K. M Nanavati

K.M. Nanavati v. State Of Maharashtra

Citation- AIR 1962 SC 605
C

Submitted To:

Mr. Abhishek Raj

Assistant Professor (Law)
ICFAI Law School

Submitted By:

Piyush Ranjan
Enrollment no.- 19FLICDDN02121
Session – 2019-24
Year – 2nd year

1|Page
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Nanavati v. State Of Maharashtra
Citation- AIR 1962 SC 605
Decided on – 24th November, 1961,
1962 SCR Supl. (1)567
Bench – Hon’ble judges: Justice K. Subbarao, SK Das, Raghubar Dayal

Introduction
This case is one of the landmark judgements of India which received unprecedented media
attention. This is a case where Kawas Manekshaw Nanvati, a Naval Commander was tried for
committing the alleged murder of paramour of his wife, Prem Ahuja. Initially he was declared
not guilty by the jury but later on the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High court and the
case was tried under a bench trial and he was held guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Again though an appeal the case was taken to the Supreme Court against the decision of the
High Court but the SC dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court. At the
same time the accused had applied before the governor for the pardoning but in vain. Later on
after around 3 years of imprisonment he was granted Pardon by the then Governor Vijay
Lakshmi Pandit.
This was the last case to be heard as a jury trial in India as the government abolished and
brought to an end the system of jury trials in India after this case.

Brief Facts of the Case -

 The accused, KM Nanavati, at the time of alleged murder, was second in command of the
Indian Naval Ship “Mysore”.
 He married Sylvia, his wife in 1949 in the registry office at Portsmouth, England and had three
children.
 Since at the time of marriage the couple were living at different places having regard to the
exigencies of service of Nanavati. Finally, they shifted to Bombay.
 In the same city the deceased Prem Ahuja was doing business in automobiles and was
residing along with his sister.
 In the year 1956, Agniks, who were common friend of Nanavati and Ahuja introduced them with
each other.
 Ahuja was unmarried and was about 34 years of age at the time of his demise.
 Nanavati, as a Naval Officer was frequently going away from Bombay in his ship leaving his
wife and children there in Bombay.
 Gradually friendship developed b/w Ahuja and Sylvia which culminated in an illicit relationship
b/w them.

2|Page
  After returning to Bombay, Nanavati noticed unaffectionate behaviour of his wife towards him.
 When questioned, on April 27, 1959, Sylvia confessed to Nanavati of her illicit intimacy with
Ahuja.
 Enraged at the conduct of Ahuja, Nanavati then decided to settle the matter with Ahuja.
 He dropped his wife and children to a cinema and drove to his ship, where he took from the
stores of the ship a semi-automatic revolver and six cartridges on a false pretext.
 Then, he drove to Ahuja’s office. On not finding him there, he went to his house with him the
envelope containing the revolver, entered is bedroom and shot him dead.
 Thereafter, the accused went to police station and surrendered him.
 He was put under arrest and in due course he was committed to the sessions for facing a
charge under section 302 of the India Penal Code.
 The trial court convicted under section 304A of IPC and in an appeal the high court converted it
into section 302 IPC.
 The accused then made an appeal before the SC and at the same time made an application to
Governor under Article 161.

Case of the prosecutor

 The accused after knowing about the illicit intimacy of the deceased with his wife dropped his
wife and children in a cinema.
 He went to this ship, took from the ship a revolver on a false pretext.
 He then went to the flat of Ahuja, entered his bedroom and shot him dead.
 Thereafter, he surrendered himself to the police.

Case of the defence

 Sylvia, when questioned by the accused about her fidelity, confessed of her being unfaithful to
him.
 There was no surety that Ahuja would marry her. The accused then decide to settle the matter
with him.
 He dropped his wife and children to a cinema and took a shot gun from his ship on a false
pretext.
 Not finding Ahuja in his office, the accused went to his house carrying the envelope containing
the revolver.
 The accused on seeing the deceased, abused him and asked whether he would marry Sylvia
and look after the children.
 The deceased retorted, “Am I to marry every woman I sleep with?”
 The accused became enraged, threatened to thrash the deceased.
 During the struggle two shots went off accidently and hit Ahuja.
 After the shooting, the accused surrendered himself.

Issues

3|Page
 1. Whether Nanavati shot Ahuja in “the heat of the moment out of sudden provocation” or
“whether it was a premediated murder”.

2. Whether the Sessions court can refer the matter to the High Court owing to the judge’s
disagreement with the decision of the jury.

3. Whether the pardoning power of the Governor under Article 161 and special leave petition can
be moved together.

The test of grave and sudden provocation is:

 Whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of the society as the accused,
placed in the same situation would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.
 For instance, in India words, gestures and mental background created by the previous act
of the victim may also be considered.
 The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the provocation, influence of passion arising from
and not after passion has cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving scope for
premeditation and calculation.

Judgement:

Jury’s Verdict-
The Jury in the Greater Bombay Sessions Court pronounced K M Nanavati as not guilty, with an 8-1
verdict. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ratilal Bhaichand Mehta, the Sessions judge considered the acquittal as
perverse and referred the case to the High Court.

High Court’s Verdict-

The HC dismissed the Jury’s verdict.
Reason:
The HC dismissed the Jury’s verdict on the basis of the following points-
1. Sylvia’s confession, or any specific incident in Ahuja’s bedroom, or both did not amount to
grave and sudden provocation.

2. The judge wrongly told the jury that the provocation can also come from third person.

3. The jury was not instructed that Nanavati’ defence had to be proved, to the extent that there is
no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person.

4|Page
 4. The provision of section 307 of the criminal procedure code clearly gave the judge a wide and
comprehensive discretion to suit different situations. And therefore the judge disagreed with the
verdict of the jury and recorded the grounds of his opinion, the reference was competent,
irrespective of the question whether the judge was right in so differing from the jury or forming
such an opinion as to the verdict.

Supreme Court’s Judgement-

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.
Reason:
The deceased, Ahuja seduced the wife of the accused. When Sylvia confessed to her husband that she
had illicit intimacy with Ahuja, the latter was not present. We will assume that he had momentarily lost
his self-control as it is quite natural to be enraged at the conduct of the deceased. But if his version is
true-for the purpose of this argument we shall accept that what he has said is true-it shows that he was
only thinking of the future of his wife and children and also of asking for an explanation from Ahuja for
his conduct. This attitude of the accused clearly states indicates that he had not only regained his self-
control, but on the other hand, was planning for the future. Then he drive his wife and children to a
cinema, left them there, went to his ship, took a revolver on a false pretext, loaded it with six rounds, did
some official business there, and drove his car to the office of Ahuja and then to his flat, went straight to
the bedroom and shot him dead. The deceased was found dead in the bath room with bullet injuries on
his body and the accused was seen coming out with revolver in his hand. Between 1:30 p.m. when he
left his house and 4:20 p.m. when the murder took place, three hours had elapsed and therefore there
was sufficient time for him to regain his self-control, even if he had not regained it earlier.
Even after the shooting till his trial in the Sessions court, he did not even told anyone that he has killed
the deceased by accident. And even he confessed to chaukidar Puransingh and admitted to his
colleague Samuel of his guilt. His description of the struggle is highly artificial and there was no such
struggle.
The court held that his conduct clearly shows that the murder was deliberate and calculated one. Even
if any conversation took place b/w the accused and the deceased in the manner described by the
accused- though we do not believe that- it does not affect the question, for the accused entered the
bed-room of the deceased to shoot him. The mere fact that before the shooting the accused abused the
deceased and the abuse provoked an equally abusive reply could not conceivably be a provocation for
the murder. We, therefore, hold that the facts of the case do not attract the provisions of Exception 1 to
section 300 of the Indian Penal Code as the accused also failed to bring the case under General
Exception of IPC by adducing evidence.
The appellant has made Special leave petition and also an application for the pardoning of the
sentence to the governor. Indeed the governor reduced the sentence of imprisonment of the accused.
The Supreme Court help that Special leave petition and pardoning power of the governor cannot
operate together.
The conviction of the accused under section 302 of IPC and sentence of life imprisonment passed by
the High Court are correct and there are absolutely no grounds for interference. Hence the appeal
stands dismissed.

5|Page
Analysis:
K M Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, made a place as a landmark case in the criminal history of India.
The judgement as soon as it was delivered made it place. The abovementioned judgement delivered by
the Apex Court was such that it got the attention of the whole nation due to unprecedented media
coverage. In the above mentioned judgement the media played a very big role as a result of which the
accused K M Nanavati was shown as the victim of foul play, a much decorated Indian naval officer who
always stood for the honour of the country and well-being of the family. It was the gift of the pitiful
journalism that such a crime of murder committed by him got accepted by the society and the bench of
the jury considered him not guilty. In this case a question arose on the proper working of the judicial
system. The then prevailing system “jury” was mainly guided by corruption and with least knowledge
more frequently erroneous every now and then. According to me the judgement of the Supreme Court
is correct because the story propounded by the accused was just a false one rendering it improbable to
be done. The jury’s decision was misled by the media coverage as a result the Sessions judge did it
correct to refer the case to High Court, which in turn convicted the accused and sentenced him to life
imprisonment. As a result this was the last case to be heard as a jury trial in India and hence the jury
system was abolished after this judgement by the Government of India, which made it as a landmark
case in the Indian Judiciary System. The faith and believe of the people on the judiciary which was
shook by the jury system was restored.
Later on, Nanavati was pardoned by the then Governor of Bombay Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, in 1964 after
completing 3 years of imprisonment.

6|Page