K. M. NANAVATI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Shubham Singh

Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University 

Citation	AIR 1962 SC 605
Appellant	Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati
Respondent	State of Maharashtra
Court	Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment	November 24, 1961
Case Type	Special Leave Petition
Hon'ble Bench	Justice S. K. Das Justice Raghubar Dayal

INTRODUCTION

K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra is a landmark case that altered the landscape of criminal jurisprudence in independent India. This was the last case heard in a jury trial, as the government abolished the jury system as a consequence of its outcome. This case revolves around a story that exemplifies a perfect amalgamation of virtues such as love, affection, agony and passion. This was one of the few cases that fell prey to a media trial and was widely discussed by the public at the time. Its immense prominence in criminal law can be estimated by the fact that multiple web series like “The Verdict” and movies like “Rustom” have been made based on this case. In this case analysis, we will strive to delve into the details and explore the intricacies of this renowned case and also scrutinize its impact on our society. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was a Parsi commander in the Indian Navy. Nanavati married Sylvia, a British woman, in 1949, and they had two sons and a daughter. He shifted with his family and settled in Bombay.

While Nanavati was away from Bombay owing to his official duties, his wife, Sylvia fell in love and developed illicit intimacy with the deceased, an affluent businessman named Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja. When the appellant returned from his work, he observed a change in the behavior of his wife who was neither talking to him politely nor letting him come close to her. Being suspicious of her loyalty, when Nanavati tried to investigate the matter, Sylvia confessed to him that she had indulged in an adulterous relationship with Prem Ahuja in the prolonged absence of her husband. Following this, Nanavati took his entire family and dropped them at the Metro Cinema for the movie, Tom Thumb. Subsequently, the appellant headed towards the naval base to collect his semi-automatic service revolver along with six cartridges in a brown envelope on a false pretext that he would require it for his safety as he was to travel to Ahmednagar alone at night. But Nanavati's real intention was to confront Ahuja concerning his wife's extra-marital affair. Consequently, the appellant reached Prem Ahuja's office but he was not present there. Later, the appellant drove to Ahuja's residence. After Ahuja's domestic servant opened the door, Nanavati straight away entered Ahuja’s bedroom and locked the doors from inside. An emotionally overwhelmed appellant asked Ahuja whether he would marry Sylvia and take care of his children, to which an infuriated Prem Ahuja allegedly replied, “Am I supposed to marry every woman I sleep with?” Annoyed by this statement, the appellant got involved in a brawl with Ahuja in which two bullet shots were accidentally fired which eventually resulted in the death of Prem Ahuja.

Nanavati surrendered himself to John Lobo, the Deputy Commissioner of Police and was charged under sections 302 and 304 (part 1) of the Indian Penal Code of 1860. However, the jury, being influenced by public sympathy towards the appellant and media portrayal of the appellant as a dignified and patriotic person, acquitted him of all the charges in a majority decision of 8:1. But the Sessions Judge, being dissatisfied with this verdict, committed the case to the Bombay High Court under section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898. The Bombay High Court overruled the jury’s judgment and convicted Nanavati of the offense of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 and awarded him the sentence of rigorous life imprisonment. As a result, Nanavati preferred an appeal against the said conviction order before the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution. Meanwhile, the appellant also moved an application before the Governor for pardoning his sentence under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution.

ISSUES RAISED

The key legal issues which were involved in this case were as follows:-

·       Whether the High Court of a state is empowered to set aside the verdict of a jury on the ground of misdirections in the charge under section 307(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898?

·       Whether the deceased was killed by the appellant in consequence of grave and sudden provocation within the meaning of Exception 1 to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860?

·       Whether the act committed by the appellant in the heat of passion or it was a premeditated cold-blooded murder?

·       Whether a mercy petition before the Governor and the Special Leave Petition before the apex court can be moved simultaneously?

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS

·       The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court of Bombay was not authorized under section 307(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 to strike down the judgment pronounced by the jury merely on the ground that there were misdirections in the charge.

·       The verdict of the jury was just and reasonable and was delivered solely based on evidence adduced before it.

·       The learned counsel for the appellant put forth his side of the story. The appellant, after being informed by his wife of her physical relationship with Prem Ahuja, wanted to commit suicide but was somehow pacified by Sylvia. Thereafter, the appellant, intending to secure the future of his wife and children, decided to have a dialogue with Prem Ahuja. He visited the flat of Ahuja and asked him if he was willing to marry Sylvia and be the Guardian of his children. But a perverted response from Ahuja further instigated an already agitated appellant who soon got engaged in a verbal altercation with Ahuja before a scuffle erupted between the two in which two bullets were mistakenly fired at Ahuja in the heat of the moment, thereby resulting in his death.

·       The appellant, therefore, claimed protection under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arguing that he should be held liable only for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS

·       The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the body of the deceased was discovered lying in his bathroom with a towel wrapped around his waist. Had there been a physical tussle between the appellant and the deceased, the towel would have fallen off; however, it remained intact on his corpse. Moreover, Anjani, Prem Ahuja's housemaid, who opened the door for the appellant, was a natural witness to this whole incident. She testified in the court that she heard the sound of two bullet shots being fired in rapid succession and the appellant came out of Ahuja's bedroom within a minute which clearly shows that it was a pre-planned murder and contradicts the appellant's submission that Ahuja was killed in the course of a physical conflict between them.

·       Now as far as the plea of having acted under sudden and grave provocation is concerned, a time-lapse of nearly three hours between the confession made by Sylvia to the appellant and the murder of Prem Ahuja was sufficient enough for any prudent and reasonable man to regain his conscience and power of self-control, assuming that the appellant was deprived of it at the time when Sylvia informed him of her illicit relationship with Prem Ahuja (deceased).

JUDGMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of K. M. Nanavati for murder by the Bombay High Court under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 as it was neither an accident/misfortune nor an act committed under grave and sudden provocation rather it was a deliberate and well-calculated move intending to kill the deceased since the “cooling period” or the time lapse between the confession made by Sylvia to her husband and the homicide of Prem Ahuja was substantial enough for any sagacious human being to regain his senses.

Besides, just before the bullet shots were fired, Nanavati hurled abuses at Ahuja which induced an equally abusive verbal retaliation but this cannot be construed as a valid provocation for murder. Thus, the facts and circumstances of this case don’t attract Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860.

The apex court further ruled that the Governor's pardoning power under Article 161 and the Supreme Court's discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution cannot be exercised simultaneously. In other words, if a special leave petition is filed before the apex Court, then the governor's authority to pardon, commute, suspend, remit, respite or reprieve the sentence awarded to the petitioner will be revoked ipso facto.

However, K. M. Nanavati was later pardoned by Vijay Lakshmi Pandit (the then Governor of Maharashtra) after spending 3 years behind bars.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this case stands out due to the extensive media attention and public sentiment surrounding it. The judgment delivered in this case proved to be insightful into the working of the Indian judiciary in high-profile cases under sheer media pressure and also shed light on the influential role of media in manipulating the minds of the judges and shaping the decision of the court. Even today, this case is most frequently referred to by legal scholars, advocates and even judges when it comes to distinguishing murder from culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

REFERENCES

[1]http://www.manupatracademy.com/legalpost/manu-sc-0147-1961

[2]http://scconline.bhuelibrary.in/DocumentLink/093p6Wg3

[3]https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab15e4b014971140b9bc/amp