Case: K.M.

Nanavati V State of Maharashtra

By Divya kumari

Date of The Case :- 24/11/1961

Petitioner:- K.M. Nanavati

Respondent :- State of Maharashtra

Bench/Judges :- SUB BA RAO K DAS ,S.K Dayal Raghubar

Citation :- AIR1962SC 605

Important Sections / Articles :- Code of Criminal Procedure(Act, 5of 1898),section

88. 307,410,417, 418 (1), 423(2), 297,155(1), 162 Indian penal code , 1860 (Act 45 of 1860),
88. 302, 300, Exception I-Indian Evidence Act,1872, section 8. 105.
Facts of The Case :-
1. The accused K.M Nanavati who is the petitioner in this case was the commanding officer
of a ship in the Indian Navy. He married Sylvia in 1949 in a registry office in England. They
had three children, two boys and one girl.
2. Due to Nanavati's work, the couple resided at a different place and thereafter shifted to
Mumbai, which is the same city where Ahuja, who is the deceased in this case, was running
his automobile business and living with his sister.
3. In 1956, Nanavati and Sylvia were introduced to Ahuja and his sister through a mutual
friend at a party.
4. Due to the demand of his work, Nanavati had to leave Bombay leaving his wife and
children at home in Bombay. As she left alone most of the time and felt lonely, Sylvia fell in
love with Ahuja and formed an illicit relationship with him.
5. After 18th April 1959, when Nanavati came back from his ship and tried to show affection
to his wife, he found that his wife was not responding as sensitively as she used to be, she
was also not showing any affection, so Nanavati was a bit tensed and asked his to his wife
whether she had formed an illicit relationship with Ahuja and she did not speak in response,
only shaking her head to indicate that she was involved in an illicit relationship with him.
6. After that Nanavati drove his car to the cinema and left his children and his wife there and
then drove towards his boat from where he got the revolver and six rounds by falsely
apologizing that he was carrying it for some other activity and then the revolver put it off. in
a brown envelope and went to Ahuja's office where he got to know that Ahuja was not in his
office but in his house and then went straight to Ahuji's apartment.
7. When he arrived at his apartment, he first confirmed from the servant whether his master
was there or not. When he found that Ahuja was there in his bedroom, he went there with a
brown envelope which had a revolver.
8.Nanavati asked Ahuja if he would marry Sylvia and take care of his children, then he
replied that he would not marry every woman he sleeps with. The accused became enraged,
placed the revolver on the cupboard and threatened to beat up the deceased.
9. When Ahuja tried to grab the envelope which was on the cupboard, a fight started between
them and during this fight two shots accidentally went off and hit Ahuja resulting in death.
10. The accused was originally found not guilty under section 302 by an 8:1 jury.
11. Thereafter, the case was referred to the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, which held the
accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issue raised :-

1. Whether Nanavati had planned for the murder or it was in heat and sudden
provocation?
2. Whether the HC had the power to set aside a jury’s decision?

Contentions
Arguments from the side appellant:
The argument of the complainant after hearing Sylvia's confession was that the complainant
never intended to kill Ahuja, he only wanted to kill himself and wanted his wife Sylvia to live
happily with the person she loves the most. Therefore, to find out the real intention of Ahuja,
he deposited his wife and children in a cinema and without letting them know his real
intention, he drove to his ship in a car, giving some false reason that he needed a revolver
because he was going. himself to Ahmednagar that night, but his real intention was to shoot
himself, not Ahuja. He first drove to Ahuja's office, but when he did not find him, he drove to
Ahuja's apartment with a brown envelope containing a revolver. When Nanavati saw Ahuja
in the bedroom, he asked Ahuja if he would marry Sylvia, and he replied that he did not
marry each the woman he sleeps with. This statement provoked nanavati and he threatened to
beat up Ahuja. When Ahuja tried to grab the envelope that was on the cupboard, a fight broke
out between them, during which Nanavati accidentally shot Ahuja. After that, Nanavati drove
his car to the police station and surrendered, so Nanavati's response was under serious and
sudden provocation, as any loving and caring husband would have been enraged on hearing
such a statement and would have tried to smash the person who said it. He may have
committed a crime, but it would not amount to murder, it would simply be culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.

Arguments from respondent’s side :

The first point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is that how is it possible or
highly improbable that the towel would remain intact on the body of the deceased in a
scuffle, which casts doubt on the intention of the appellant. Furthermore, after Sylvia's
confession, Nanavati first dropped his wife and children in the cinema and then went to his
boat, took the revolver giving a false reason and then went to Ahuja's office. When he
realized that Ahuja was not in his office, he went straight to his apartment. This shows that he
had enough time to cool down and the provocation was not serious and suddenly it was a pre-
arranged plan. If the grave and provocation were sudden, he would go straight to Ahuja's
apartment and kill him with whatever weapon he didn't have according to the prearranged
plan. According to the testimony of Ahuja's servant Anjani, who was a natural witness, he
testified that there were four shots fired in quick succession and the whole event took place in
less than one minute and this was not possible in a skirmish. The Deputy Commissioner of
Police testified that when Nanavati confessed at the police station, he corrected the spelling
error, thereby showing that he was not intoxicated and in a proper state of mind.

Rationale :-

Hon’ble High Court judgement

A two-judge panel of the Maharashtra High Court held that Nanavati was liable under
Section 302 of the IPC as he had committed the premeditated murder of Ahuja, as evidenced
by the fact that he first dropped his wife and children at a cinema and then went on a boat to
take the revolver all these events they show that it was a premeditated murder, not under
serious and sudden provocation.
Hon’ble Supreme court judgement
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the case did not fall under the exception of Grave and
sudden provocation because at the time of Sylvia's confession of adultery, Nanavati was not
present and there was a gap of three hours between the time of confession and the time of
confession. the time of the killings which do not show that the provocation was Grave and it
was enough to cool Nanavati's anger .The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the case would
not fall under the exception as there was premeditated plan and also grave and sudden
provocation was absent in this case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the following
points

1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if a judge finds the verdict of the jury contrary to the
provisions of the law, he can refer the case to the high court under section 307(1) crpc.[5]
2. After reviewing all the evidence, the Hon'ble Court was of the opinion that the appellant
after proper calculation planned to murder Ahuja and it is clearly evident from the conduct of
the appellant that he first drove his car to the theatre and left his wife and children there and
then on a false pretext he took a revolver and shot Ouch. After his wife confessed her
infidelity to him, he had enough time to cool down, so that the case did not fall into a serious
and sudden provocation.

Defects of law
 The case received extensive media coverage, leading to public outrage and sympathy
towards Nanavati. This public sentiment may have influenced the decision-making
process and the outcome of the trial, potentially undermining the principles of justice.
 The jury's initial verdict of not guilty highlights an inconsistency in the application of
the law. Different jurors may have had different interpretations of the evidence and
legal principles, leading to inconsistent results. In that case, the jury's decision was
later overturned by higher courts.
These loopholes in the law, which emerged during the KM Nanavati case, revealed the need
for comprehensive legal reforms to deal more effectively with crimes of passion and
temporary insanity. The case highlighted the importance of having clear legal guidance, a
strong legal framework and a fair and impartial judicial process.
Inference:-
In the case of K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra, we see that supremacy of law is
established. The jury, swayed by the media and public opinion, delivered an unfair but
celebratory verdict. It was then referred to the higher courts, which later found the accused
guilty of the crime he had committed. This proves that the law remains the same for everyone
regardless of their status or class and is superior to everyone in the country. Due to corruption
and inefficiency of the jury system, it was removed after KM Nanavati vs State of
Maharashtra. The onus of proof does not rest on the prosecution if the facts are proved with
utmost clarity and beyond reasonable doubt, which is essential for an effective decision,
contrary to what the jury in KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra believed.