This article has been written by ANJALI PRAKASH from GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE THRISSUR

Table of Contents

State of Maharashtra v. KM Nanavati (1961)

Citation: AIR 1962 SC 605.

Date of Decision: November 24, 1961

Bench: Raghubar Dayal, S. K. Das, and K. Subbarao

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important rulings in the history of the Indian judiciary is the ruling in the case of K.M. Nanavati v. the State of Maharashtra. The case garnered coverage in the media never seen before. As a result of this case, the Indian government eliminated the jury system, making it the only case in Indian history to be tried by a jury. This instance emphasises a crucial idea regarding “Grave and Sudden Provocation.”

Case facts

Indian Naval Officer K.M. Nanavati, the petitioner, moved to Bombay with his spouse Sylvia and their kids.
In the same city lived a businessman called Prem Bhagwan Ahuja and his sister.
Agniks, whom Ahujas and Nanavatis had as pals, introduced Ahuja and his sister to Nanavatis in 1956.
Sylvia, Nanavati’s wife, fell in love with Prem Ahuja and started having illicit encounters with him when he was regularly absent from Bombay on official business for extended periods.
Nanavati wanted to show his wife affection when he returned from his ship, but she repeatedly refused to respond.
Nanavati questioned his wife on April 27, 1959, about her loyalty to him. All she did was shake her head to say she wasn’t.
Sylvia told her husband, on April 27, 1959, that she had an illicit relationship with Prem Ahuja.
Amid his misery, Nanavati hurried to his ship to get a loaded handgun before heading to Prem Ahuja’s office.
After failing to locate him at work, he drove to Ahuja’s house and fatally shot him.
The jury’s initial 8-1 finding under Section 302 found the accused, K.M. Nanavati, not guilty.
The Sessions Judge then used Section 307 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure to send the case to the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.
Section 302 of the IPC was invoked by the Hon’ble High Court to pronounce the accused guilty.
Finally, an appeal was filed with the Honourable Supreme Court.

The Petitioner’s Contentions

The claim made by Nanavati’s attorney was that after learning of Sylvia’s confession, Nanavati considered suicide, but his wife intervened and stopped him. Since Ahuja had not told him, he intended to find out if she wanted to marry her. Consequently, he drove his automobile to his ship after dropping off his wife and two kids at the movie theatre.
Nanavati told the officials on board that he was going to drive alone to Ahmednagar by night and that he would want to take a handgun and six bullets from the ship’s storage, but in reality, he wanted to shoot himself. When he got the brown packet with the handgun and six rounds, he put them inside.
After that, Nanavati drove to Ahuja’s office. However, upon seeing him there, he drove to Ahuja’s flat, where a servant unlocked the door and he proceeded to stroll to Ahuja’s bedroom, shutting it behind him. In addition, he was holding the envelope with the revolver in it.
Upon observing Ahuja in the bedroom, Nanavati called him a filthy pig and inquired if he would wed Sylvia and take care of the kids. “Should I get married to every woman I have sex with?” Ahuja became enraged. Furious, Nanavati put the handgun in an envelope and put it in a nearby cabinet, threatening to beat him. Ahuja suddenly reached for the envelope, but Nanavati pulled out his revolver and motioned for him to return. The two got into a fistfight, and amid the struggle, two shots were accidentally fired, killing Ahuja.
After the shooting, Nanavati got back in his car and drove to the police station, where he turned himself in. Because of this, the petitioner shot the Ahuja in retaliation for a serious and unexpected provocation. Even if he had committed a crime, it would only have been culpable homicide, not murder.

The Respondent’s Contentions

The fact that Ahuja had just emerged from the shower wearing a towel was the initial bone of contention. When his body was found, his towel was still on it. It was quite unlikely that it had come loose or fallen off during a fight.
After Sylvia confessed, a cool-headed and collected Nanavati drove them to a movie theatre, dropped them there, and then—under false pretences—went to his ship to get his pistol. This proves that he had enough time to cool off, that the provocation wasn’t severe or unexpected, and that Nanavati planned the murder.
As a natural witness, Ahuja’s servant Anjani confirmed that four shots were fired in quick succession and that the whole episode took place in less than a minute, ruling out a skirmish.
Without telling his sister Mamie, who was in a different room, that it was an accident, Nanavati left Ahuja’s house.
As per the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nanavati acknowledged shooting Ahuja and corrected his name’s misspelling in the police file, indicating that Nanavati was capable of rational thought.

Concerns Presented to the Court

If the Sessions Judge’s referral was competent, and if the High Court had power to investigate the facts under Section 307 of the CrPC.
If the High Court was authorised by Section 307(3) of the CrPC to set aside a jury’s verdict due to misdirection in charge.
If the charge contained any misdirections.
Whether the jury’s verdict could have been made by a group of reasonable men given the information that was given to them.
Whether the murder was planned out or carried out in “the heat of the moment”?
Is it possible to combine the Governor’s pardoning authority with the Special Leave Petition?

JUDGEMENT

Jury Trial: The jury trial was held at the session court where the case was initially brought. According to Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, Nanavati was found not guilty by a majority of 8:1 at the jury trial. Under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Session Judge forwarded the matter to the Bombay High Court’s Division Bench because he was dissatisfied with the jury trial’s verdict.
High Court Judgement: The matter was heard by a division bench of Justices Shelat and Naik of the High Court. It was decided that Ahuja’s remark and Sylvia’s admissions were not serious enough to enrage Nanavati. Although the judges reached different conclusions, they both concluded that the accused should be sentenced to life in prison for murder following Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After considering all available information, Justice Shelat found that the defendant had committed murder. In addition, he declared that the jury’s decision was illogical, absurd, perverse, and at odds with the preponderance of the evidence. No reasonable collection of persons could have arrived at the jury’s verdict, according to Justice Naik. The two experienced judges concluded that there was insufficient evidence to reduce the accused’s charge from murder to culpable homicide, which does not qualify as murder. The accused filed an appeal with the Indian Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Judgement: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered a decision, holding that the murder was premeditated and that the defence of sudden or grave provocation could not be maintained after considering all the facts and evidence presented by both sides. The highest court noted that after dropping off his spouse and kids at the movie theatre, Nanavati proceeded to get his handgun, went to Ahuja’s workplace, and then returned to his house. This demonstrated that Nanavati had enough time to gather her thoughts and plot the assassination of Ahuja. Therefore, the murder was planned and not committed in the “heat of the moment.” The highest court further ruled that the governor could not exercise his pardon authority and special leave petition at the same time or concurrently. The Governor’s pardoning powers ended if a special leave petition was submitted to the Supreme Court. The governor “overreached” the authority granted to him, according to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In agreement with the Bombay High Court’s findings, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury had been misled. The supreme court further stated that following the reference made by the Session’s Judge under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Bombay High Court shall consider the evidence and even refer to the opinions of the judges and the jury before rendering a decision regarding acquittal or conviction.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court established two guidelines that must be adhered to when assessing a session judge’s referral’s competency. First, the judge has to disagree with the jury’s verdict. The second requirement is that the session judge must believe the ruling was of a kind that no sane person could have made. The only court with the authority to reject the Session’s Judge’s referral is the High Court, provided the two aforementioned requirements are not met. The Hon’ble Supreme Court established two guidelines that must be adhered to when assessing a session judge’s referral’s competency. First, the judge has to disagree with the jury’s verdict. The second requirement is that the session judge must believe the ruling was of a kind that no sane person could have made. The only court with the authority to reject the Session’s Judge’s referral is the High Court, provided the two aforementioned requirements are not met.

Thus, the Supreme Court of India denied the appeal and confirmed the High Court’s ruling. Nanavati was found guilty of murder by Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code after it was decided that the first exception to Section 300 of the code did not apply in this particular situation.

Evaluation of the Situation

One of the most significant legal cases in Indian history is K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra. The prosecution had the burden of proof in this instance, but when Exceptions under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code were applied, the burden of proof moved to the accused, and Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, came into effect.

Jury trials were terminated as a result of this case. The Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court of India both agreed that the jury had been misled.

Defence of Grave and Sudden Death is the first exception under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Provocation is only appropriate under the following circumstances:

The deceased provoked the accused.
The incitement was severe and abrupt.
The accused lost self-control as a result of the provocation.
Whether, in the same circumstances as the accused, a reasonable man of the same ability and social status would also be provoked in the same way
The accused was unable to plan for the outcome of his actions in advance.

Post Judgement

While Nanavati was serving, he maintained relationships with the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Jawahar Lal Nehru’s sister, Vijaylakshmi Pandit, served as Maharashtra’s governor at the time. Nanavati was sent from naval custody to a civilian prison on September 8, 1960. He was only incarcerated for three years. Based on her health, Nanavati was granted parole and sent to a hill resort house.

He was a member of the Parsi community, which organised protests and offered Nanavati a lot of media backing. The general public saw Nanavati as an honest and sincere officer who had been duped by his wife and duped by a friend. Ahuja was regarded as Ravana, and Nanavati as the Ram of the modern era. The Maharashtra governor at the time, Vijaylakshmi Pandit, pardoned Nanavati in 1964.

CONCLUSION

One of the most controversial cases the Indian courts have handled is the K.M. Nanavati case. Extreme media coverage of the case—which went from a jury verdict of not guilty to being declared guilty of murder by the Supreme Court—probably had a big influence on the jury’s decision.

Given the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we must recognise the Court’s ruling. Penalties ought not to be applied haphazardly or arbitrarily. The severity of a crime should be commensurate with the offence committed. The Nanavati case exemplifies the stringent interpretation of penal statutes, which are the subject of severe interpretation. The man’s honour or social status had no bearing on the Court’s decision; rather, it was determined by the specifics of the crime he had committed.