KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
Debolina Banerjee
Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata
This Case Commentary is written by Debolina Banerjee, a Second-Year Law Student of Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata
INTRODUCTION
This case is a landmark case in Indian history as declared by the Supreme Court in the year 1959. In this case, Naval Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was accused of murdering Prem Ahuja who was his wife’s lover. This case was an inspiration for many novels and movies. This case received huge media coverage and this was also the last case in India as after this case Indian Judicial system abolished the system of jury trial.
CASE DETAILS
· Petitioner – Km Nanavati
· Respondent – State of Maharashtra
· Citation – AIR 1962 SC 605
· Date of Judgment – 24th November 1961
· Bench – K. Subbarao, S.K. Das, Raghubar Dayal
· Name of the Court – Supreme Court
FACTS OF THE CASE
Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was originally a Parsi but a commander in the Indian Navy. He was the second in command of the Indian Navy and was posted at Mysore. He along with his family (wife named Sylvia and 2 sons and 1 daughter) used to travel to many places due to the nature of his work. Finally, he settled in Bombay with his family. Nanavati had to visit many places as it was part of his job and in doing so he had to leave his family behind. It was in Bombay where they met Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja because of a consignment related to the purchase of a naval ship.
Whenever Nnavati used to go out for work leaving his wife behind, his wife, Sylvia, and Prem used to meet and with time their relationship grew stronger, and eventually their relationship took the form of an illicit relationship. One day after returning from work when Nanavati tried getting close to his wife she started to behave strangely and also rudely. At first, Nanavati was not concerned about and let her behavior slide but this became a daily routine for her and he started to doubt her loyalty.
On 29th April Nanavati confronted Sylvia and questioned her the reason behind her strange behavior and she confessed about her relationship with Prem to him. On hearing this Nanavati went to confront Prem. He also went to his naval base and collected his pistol and six bullets on a false pretext and then headed to confront Prem. He informed the authorities that he would drive alone to Ahmednagar at night and he needed the gun for safety purposes and put the pistol along with the six cartridges in a brown envelope. He went to Ahuja’s office but did not find him there and therefore went to his home. They both had a verbal confrontation where Nanavati asked Prem to marry Sylvia and accept their children. He expected that Prem would marry and take custody of his children but Prem replied negatively and said “Am I supposed to marry every woman I sleep with?” hearing this Nanavati emotionally broke down as he was worried about the future of his family. Upon hearing negative comments from Prem regarding his wife, Nanavati got provoked and engaged in a quarrel finally three shots were fired and Prem was found dead.
After this incident, Nanavati surrendered to the Deputy Commissioner of Police. The jury on the ratio of 8:1 gave the verdict that he was not guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The judge was not satisfied with the verdict of the jury and transferred the case to the Bombay High Court under section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc). On reviewing the case the Bombay High Court overturned the decision of the jury and held him guilty under section 302 of IPC and subsequently an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of India.
ISSUES RAISED
Whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 307 of the CrPC to examine the facts 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 3073 of the CrPC.
CONTENTION PUT FORTH BY THE PETITIONER
The counsel of Nanavati put forth that after hearing Sylvia’s confession, Nanavati wanted to kill himself but he was calmed down by his wife. He wanted to understand his true intention of Prem and therefore went to confront him. He informed the ship authorities that he wanted the revolver for safety purposes as he would drive at Ahmednagar at night alone. He did not disclose his true intentions. He reached Ahuja’s office but he was not there so Nanavati went to his flat. When Nanavati asked Prem whether he would marry Sylvia and take care of his children, Prem replied negatively and also used vulgar comments against Sylvia. Therefore both got engaged in a quarrel and Nanavati was provoked as a result of which two shots were mistakenly fired and resulted in Prem’s death. After the incident, he went and surrendered. Thus the entire event was a result of sudden and grave provocation therefore the petitioner can be held liable for Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder.
CONTENTION PUT FORTH BY THE RESPONDENT
The first point that the respondent side brought up was that when Nanavati went inside Ahuja’s room he was in his towel as he just come out of the shower. The point of contention was that even after a scuffle between them the towel remained intact and did not fall. Moreover, after Sylvia confessed there was enough time for Nanavati to cool down so the point that this happened due to sudden and grave provocation was not valid. Ahuja’s servant was a witness and she informed that four shots were heard rapidly and the entire incident took place in less than a minute, which proves that he planned this entire thing on his way to Ahuja’s house. Nanavati surrendered and confessed that he had shot Prem. He even corrected his spelling in the police record which shows that he was mentally stable and was able to think rationally.
HIGH COURT’S DECISION
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court heard the case. Initially both the judges were of different opinions but later both agreed that Nanavati was guilty of murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he should be imprisoned for life. They held that the decision given by the jury was irrational and contrary to the evidence. The accused was guilty of murder under section 302.
SUPREME COURT’S DECISION
After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case the Supreme Court held that the accused had enough time to regain his self-control and therefore the point that he committed the offense out of sudden provocation is not at all valid and was considered as premeditated murder. Moreover, his intentions were clear from the start because by the time he went to collect the pistol he had already planned something in his mind. The injuries found on the deceased body show proof of deliberate shooting.
The court also highlighted the interplay between the power of the Governor to grant pardon or to reduce punishment given under Article 161 and the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the constitution of India. The court clarifies that both powers cannot be used together. The court agreed with the decision of the High Court and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment.
CONCLUSION
This case became a landmark case in the criminal history of India and led to the abolishment of Jury trials. The case from the start had media attention which resulted in it being a center of attention for the whole nation. The case highlighted the importance of the media and its influence in changing the decision of the jury. It also provides the importance of having experienced judges for deciding cases of such an important nature.
REFERENCES
· https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1596139/
· https://blog.ipleaders.in/k-m-nanavati-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-case-analysis/