K. M. NANAVATI Vs.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 1961

(1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567)

PETITIONER: K. M. NANAVATI
Vs.
RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/11/1961
BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. DAS,
S.K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

BACKGROUND –
A landmark case in the criminal history of India, K.M. Nanavati v. the State of Maharashtra has been a
case discussed ever since now. This judgment made its place as soon as it was pronounced.
This landmark judgment of India received unprecedented media attention as it involved Kawas
Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander who was tried for murdering his wife’s lover, Mr. Prem
Ahuja. Initially, Nanavati was declared not guilty, but later the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay
High Court and the case was tried under a bench trial.
This case was the last case to be heard as a jury trial in India because as the result of this case, the
government abolished the jury trials in India.
Let’s look into the details of the case to understand it better.

FACTS –
The accused, Nanavati, at the time of the alleged murder, was second in command of the Indian Naval
Ship “Mysore”. He married Sylvia in 1949 and had three children.
Since 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 Ahuja was doing business in automobiles and in the year 1956, Agniks,
who were common friends of Nanavati's and Ahujas, introduced Ahuja and his sister to Nanavati's.
Ahuja was unmarried and was about 34 years of age at the time of his death.
Nanavati, as a Naval Officer, was frequently going away from Bombay in his ship, leaving his wife and
children in Bombay.
Gradually, a friendship developed between Ahuja and Sylvia, which culminated in illicit intimacy
between them.
On April 27, 1959, Sylvia confessed to Nanavati of her illicit intimacy with Ahuja.
Enraged at the conduct of Ahuja, Nanavati went to his ship, took from the stores of the ship a semi-
automatic revolver and six cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the same, went to the flat of Ahuja
entered his bedroom, and shot him dead.
Thereafter, the accused surrendered himself to the police. He was put under arrest and in due course, he
was committed to the Sessions for facing a charge under s. 302 of the Indian Penal code.
But the defense version was that the accused was away with his ship from April 6, 1959, to April 18,
1959. Immediately after returning to Bombay, he and his wife went to Ahmednagar for about three days.
Thereafter, they returned to Bombay and the accused noticed that his wife was behaving strangely and
was not responsive or affectionate to him. When questioned, she used to evade the issue.
At noon on April 27, 1959, when they were sitting in the sitting-room for the lunch to be served, the
accused put his arm around his wife affectionately, when she seemed to go tense and unresponsive.
After lunch, when he questioned her about her fidelity, she shook her head to indicate that she was
unfaithful to him. He guessed that her paramour was Ahuja. As she did not even indicate clearly whether
Ahuja would marry her and look after the children, he decided to settle the matter with him. Sylvia
pleaded with him not to go to Ahuja’s house, as he might shoot him.
Thereafter, he drove his wife, two of his children, and a neighbor’s child in his car to a cinema dropped
them there, and promised to come and pick them up at 6 P.M. when the show ended. He then drove his
car to his ship, as he wanted to get medicine for his sick dog, he represented to the authorities in the
ship, that he wanted to draw a revolver and six rounds from the stores of the ship as he was going to
drive alone to Ahmednagar by night, though the real purpose was to shoot himself.
On receiving the revolver and six cartridges, and put it inside a brown envelope. Then he drove his car
to Ahuja’s office, and not finding him there, he drove to Ahuja’s flat, rang the doorbell, and, when it was
opened by a servant, walked to Ahuja’s bed-room, went into the bedroom and shut the door behind him.
He also carried with him the envelope containing the revolver. The accused saw the deceased inside the
bedroom, called him a filthy swine, and asked him 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, put the envelope containing the revolver on a cabinet nearby, and threatened to thrash the
deceased.
The deceased made a sudden move to grasp at the envelope when the accused whipped out his revolver
and told him to get back. A struggle ensued between the two and during that struggle two shots went off
accidentally and hit Ahuja resulting in his death. After the shooting, the accused went back to his car and
drove it to the police station where he surrendered himself.
The trial court was convicted under S.304 A of IPC and in appeal, the high court convert it into S.302 of
IPC.
So, the accused made an appeal before the SC and at the same time, he made an application to the
governor under Art.161.

ISSUE –
 Whether Nanavati shot Ahuja in “the heat of the moment” or whether it was a premeditated
murder?
 Whether SLP (Special Leave Petition) can be entertained without fulfilling the order under
Article 142?
 Whether the pardoning power of the governor and SLP can move together?

JUDGEMENT –
The deceased seduced the wife of the accused. She had confessed to him of her illicit intimacy with the
deceased. It was natural that the accused was enraged at the conduct of the deceased and had, therefore,
sufficient motive to do away with the deceased. He deliberately secured the revolver on a false pretext
from the ship, drove to the flat of Ahuja, entered his bedroom unceremoniously with a loaded revolver
in hand, and in about a few seconds thereafter came out with the revolver in his hand.
The deceased was found dead in his bathroom with bullet injuries on his body. It is not disputed that the
bullets that caused injuries to Ahuja emanated from the revolver that was in the hand of the accused.
After the shooting, till his trial in the Sessions Court, he did not tell anybody that he shot the deceased
by accident. Indeed, he confessed his guilt to the chowkidar Puransingh and practically admitted the
same to his colleague Samuel.
His description of the struggle in the bathroom is highly artificial and is devoid of all necessary
particulars. The injuries found on the body of the deceased are consistent with the intentional shooting
and the main injuries are wholly inconsistent with accidental shooting when the victim and the assailant
were in close grips. The other circumstances brought out in the evidence also established that there
could not have been any fight or struggle between the accused and the deceased.
The court held that the conduct of the accused clearly shows that the murder was a deliberate and
calculated one and the facts of the case do not attract the provisions of Exceptions 1 of Sec 300 of IPC
as the accused also failed to bring the case under General Exception of IPC by adducing evidence. As
the result, the conviction of the accused under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment
for life.

CONCLUSION –
From this, we can say the literal rule has been applied to the court and just read the plain text of the
constitution which is used by the SC in this case. Only on the failure of literal rule the other rules of
interpretation can be used. But the law is very clear and so there is no point in applying any other rule.
The decision of the Supreme Court is perfect according to me in this case. There is no issue that 2
remedies cannot be granted for one cause and the same thing is laid down here.