Case 1 - K.M. Nanavati v.

State of Maharastra (1959)

Name of the case - K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharastra

Parties of the case -

PETITIONER: K. M. NANAVATI Vs.
RESPONDENT:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
BENCH:SUBBARAO, K.DAS, S.K.DAYAL, RAGHUBAR

Nature of the case - Criminal

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction -
K.M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra is a landmark case in the Indian legal
history. The case grabbed attention from all sides as a high rank navy officer was
involved in the murder of his wife's paramour. This case is considered important
not just because it gained popularity but also because many important legal issues
were raised in this case.

Numerous books have been written and many movies and documentaries have been made
on this famous case. The case of KM Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra is also
considered responsible for the end of jury trials in India.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts of the case -

1. The petitioner K.M. Nanavati, an Indian Naval Officer, shifted to Bombay with
his wife Sylvia and their children.

2. A businessman named Prem Bhagwan Ahuja was residing with his sister in the same
city.

3. In 1956, Ahuja and his sister were introduced to Nanavatis through Agniks, who
were common acquaintances of Ahujas and Nanavatis.

4. When Nanavati was frequently away from Bombay on his official duty for longer
durations then Sylvia, his wife, fell in love with Prem Ahuja and developed Illicit
relations with him.

5. When Nanavati returned from his ship he tried to be affectionate to his wife to
which she was not being responsive on multiple occasions.

6. On 27 April 1959, Nanavati asked his wife if she had been faithful to him. She
merely shook her head to indicate that she was not.

7. On 27 April 1959, Sylvia confessed to her husband about the illicit relationship
with Prem Ahuja.

8. In the heat of agony, Nanavati went to his ship to procure a loaded revolver and
then went to the office of Prem Ahuja.

9. On not finding him at the office he drove to Ahuja’s residence and shot him
dead.
10. K.M. Nanavati, the accused, initially was declared not guilty under Section 302
by the Jury with an 8 : 1 verdict.

11. The case was then referred by the Sessions Judge to the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

12. The Hon’ble High Court declared the accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC.

13. An appeal was finally made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contentions of the petitioner -

The argument put forth by the counsel of Nanavati was that after hearing Sylvia’s
confession, Nanavati wanted to kill himself, but his wife managed to calm him down.
He planned to find out whether Ahuja wanted to marry her or not because she didn’t
inform him. As a result, he dropped his wife and two children off at the movie
theatre and drove to his ship in his car.

Nanavati informed the authorities in the ship that he wanted to take a revolver and
six rounds from the ship’s stores because he was going to drive alone to Ahmednagar
by night, but his true intention was to shoot himself. He placed the revolver and
six cartridges inside a brown envelope after receiving them.

Nanavati then drove to Ahuja’s office, but when he didn’t find him there, he drove
to Ahuja’s flat, which was unlocked by a servant, and walked to Ahuja’s bedroom,
closing the door behind him. He was also carrying the envelope containing the
revolver.

When Nanavati saw Ahuja inside the bedroom, he labelled him a dirty swine and asked
if he would marry Sylvia and care for the children. “Am I supposed to marry every
woman I sleep with?” Ahuja raged. Nanavati became enraged, stowed the revolver in
an envelope in a neighbouring cabinet, and threatened to thrash him. When Ahuja
made a sudden grab at the envelope, Nanavati drew his revolver and told Ahuja to
return. A scuffle erupted between the two, and during the struggle, two rounds were
mistakenly fired, killing Ahuja.

Nanavati returned to his car after the shooting and drove it to the police station,
where he surrendered. Hence, the petitioner shot at the Ahuja in response to a
grave and sudden provocation, and even if he did commit an offence, it would be
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Contentions of the respondent -

The first point of disagreement was that Ahuja had just gotten out of the shower
while wearing a towel. His towel was still on his body when his body was
discovered. It hadn’t loosened or fallen off, which was exceedingly unlikely in the
event of a scuffle.

Following Sylvia’s confession, a calm and composed Nanavati drove them to a movie
theatre, dropped them off, and then went to his ship to get his pistol, all on
false pretences. This demonstrates that he had sufficient cooling time, that the
provocation was neither grave nor sudden, and that Nanavati had premeditated the
murder.

Anjani, Ahuja’s servant who was there at the time of the incident and was a natural
witness, testified that four shots were fired in rapid succession and that the
entire event occurred in less than a minute, ruling out a scuffle.

Nanavati exited Ahuja’s residence without informing his sister Mamie, who was
present in another room, that it was an accident.

According to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nanavati admitted to shooting Ahuja

and even rectified the misspelling of his name in the police record, demonstrating
Nanavati’s ability to think normally.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issues involved -

Whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 307 of the CrPC to examine
the facts in order to determine the competency of the Sessions Judge’s referral.

Whether the High Court had the power to strike aside a jury’s decision on the
grounds of misdirection in charge under Section 307(3) of the CrPC.

Whether there were any misdirections in the charge.

Whether the jury’s decision was such that it might have been reached by a group of
reasonable men based on the facts presented to them.

Whether the act was done in “the heat of the moment” or whether it was a
premeditated murder?

Whether the pardoning power of the Governor and the Special Leave Petition can be
clubbed together?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jury Trial

The case first went to the session court where the jury trial took place. In the
jury trial, Nanavati was not held guilty by a majority of 8:1 under Section 304 of
the Indian Penal Code. However, the Session Judge was not satisfied with the
decision of the jury trial and referred the case to the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Hon’ble High Court’s judgement

A division Bench of the said High Court, consisting of Shelat and Naik, JJ., heard
the case. The two learned Judges issued separate decisions, but both agreed that
the accused was guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
should be imprisoned for the rest of his life. After concluding that the jury had
been misled, Shelat, J. evaluated the complete evidence and concluded that the
accused was plainly guilty of murder; alternatively, he expressed the opinion that
the jury’s finding was perverse, irrational, and, in any case, contrary to the
weight of evidence. Naik, J., opted to reach his finding on the alternative
argument that no reasonable group of people could have reached the jury’s
conclusion. Both the learned Judges agreed that no case had been made out to reduce
the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The present
appeal has been preferred against the said conviction and sentence.

Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgement

As pointed out by the Supreme Court, confession by the wife of adultery was grave
but Ahuja was not present at the time the confession was made, hence, the element
of the suddenness of killing was missing. Because three hours had transpired
between the time of confession and the time of the killing, the Court concluded
that a reasonable man had had enough time to cool down since the provocation.

The Supreme Court ruled that the accused’s conviction under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court are
legitimate, and there are no grounds for interference.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that if the judge disagrees with the jury’s
decision, he can refer the case to the High Court under subsection (1) of section
307 of the CrPC. The following two elements must be met: (1) the judge must
disagree with the jury’s verdict, and (2) he must believe that the jury’s verdict
was one that no reasonable man could have reached. The referral order will be
competent if and only if these two conditions are met; otherwise, it will be deemed
incompetent and will be rejected by the High Court.

When the High Court determines that the order of reference is competent, it must
perform the responsibilities set forth in subsection (3) of section 307 of the
CrPC. Under this provision, the High Court must review all evidence, give due
weight to the judge’s and jury’s opinions, and then acquit or condemn the accused.
The defendant’s learned counsel contended that the opposite meaning would
contradict the objective of this clause.

The Court concurred with the High Court’s conclusions about the Judge’s allegation
of misdirection. It noted that the question of whether a misdirection tainted the
jury’s verdict must be considered in light of the likely impact that the
misdirection had on the lay jury. The Supreme Court went on to say that the purpose
of the judge’s charge to the jury is to explain and present the facts and
circumstances of the case to them. The Judge’s job is to make sure that the jury
understands the law and its ramifications, as well as to present all of the
evidence to them so that they can make the best conclusion possible.

After reviewing all the evidence, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the
conduct of the appellant was inconsistent with his defence that the deceased was
shot by accident. In contrast, he had the mentality of someone who had planned and
calculatedly exacted vengeance on his wife’s lover. On a false pretext, he secured
the revolver and marched into Ahuja’s bedroom with a loaded weapon. Despite having
numerous opportunities to do so, he did not tell anyone that he shot the deceased
by accident until his trial. The injuries found on the deceased’s body were
consistent with a deliberate shooting. Thus the verdict of the jury could not
stand.As a result, the Court came to the conclusion that no reasonable group of men
could have reached the same determination as the jury based on the evidence.

After considering the facts of the case, the Court determined that not only had the
accused/appellant developed self-control, but he was also considering his family’s
future. After his wife confessed her infidelity to him, he had plenty of time to
calm down. His actions were plainly calculated and purposeful. The case did not
fall under the defence of, grave and sudden provocation and that it was
premeditated murder.

The Supreme Court held that the pardoning power of the Governor and the Special
leave petition cannot operate together. If a Special leave petition is filed, then
the power of the Governor will cease to exist.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation: AIR 1962 SC 605

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------