CASE
COMMENT
K.M.
Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra on 24 November 1961
Bench:
K. Subbarao (J), S.K. Das (J)
PETITIONER……………………………………………………….. “K.M. Nanavati”
V.
RESPONDENT…………………………………………………….. “State of Maharashtra”
DATE
OF JUDGEMENT- 24/11/1961
BENCH:
K.
SUBBARAO (J)
S.K.
DAS (J)
CITATION:
1961
AIR SC 112
Introduction
The
case of K.M. Nanavati v. the State of Maharashtra is one of the most important
decisions in Indian legal history. The case attracted tremendous media
attention. It is also renowned as the last case in India to be heard as a jury
trial, as a result of the case, the government abolished the jury system. The
principle of 'Grave and Sudden Provocation' is highlighted in this case.
Provisions
of Law involved
The
Supreme Court concluded that the accused's conviction under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and the High Court's sentence of life imprisonment was legal
and that there was no reason to interfere.
Issues
1.
Whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction to investigate the facts in order to
evaluate the competency of the Sessions Judge's referral under Section 307 of
the CrPC.
2.
Whether the High Court had the authority under Section 307(3) of the CrPC to
overturn a jury's finding on the grounds of misdirection in charge.
3.
Whether there were any misdirections in the charge.
4.
Whether the Jury had laid down such a direction that it might have reached by a
group of reasonable men based on the facts that were presented to them.
5.
Whether the act was committed “at the heat of the moment” or whether it was a
pre-mediated murder?
6.
Whether the pardoning power of the Governor and the Special Leave Petition
could be clubbed together?
Facts
of the Case
The
petitioner, Indian Naval Officer K.M. Nanavati, moved to Bombay with his wife
Sylvia and their children. In the same city, a businessman named PremBhagwan
Ahuja lived with his sister. Agniks, who were common associates of Ahujas and
Nanavatis, introduced Ahuja and his sister to Nanavatis in 1956. When Nanavati
was away from Bombay on official duty for prolonged periods of time, his wife,
Sylvia, fell in love with Prem Ahuja and began illicit encounters with him.
Nanavati tried to be affectionate to his wife when he returned from his ship,
but she was unresponsive on several occasions. Nanavati questioned his wife
whether she had been faithful to him on April 27, 1959. She simply shook her
head to show that she wasn't interested. On the same day, Sylvia had disclosed
her illicit relationship with Prem Ahuja to her husband. Nanavati hurried to
his ship to get a loaded handgun and then to Prem Ahuja's office in the throes
of misery. When he couldn't find him at the office, he drove to Ahuja's house
and shot him. The accused, K.M. Nanavati, was initially found not guilty of
violating Section 302 by an 8: 1 jury. The matter was then referred to the
Hon'ble High Court of Bombay by the Sessions Judge under Section 307 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused was found guilty under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Hon'ble High Court. Lastly, the appeal was
made to the Apex Court of the country.
Contentions
Arguments
given by the petitioner
Nanavati's
lawyer claimed that after hearing Sylvia's confession, Nanavati wanted to kill
himself, but his wife intervened and calmed him down. He intended to find out
if Ahuja wanted to marry her or not after she failed to inform him. As a
result, he drove to his ship after dropping off his wife and two children at
the movie theatre. Nanavati told the ship's authorities that he wanted to steal
a handgun and six rounds from the ship's stores because he planned to drive
alone to Ahmednagar at night, but his genuine plan was to shoot himself. After
getting the pistol and six rounds, he placed them in a brown envelope. Nanavati
then drove to Ahuja's office, but since he wasn't there, he drove to Ahuja's
flat, which was unlocked by a servant, and walked into Ahuja's bedroom, closing
the door behind him. He was also carrying the pistol in the packet. Nanavati
called Ahuja a nasty swine and questioned whether he would marry Sylvia and
care for the children when he saw him inside the bedroom. "Do I have to
marry every woman I have a sexual relationship with?" Ahuja was enraged.
Nanavati became infuriated and threatened to thrash him, stowing the gun in an
envelope in a nearby cabinet. Nanavati readied his revolver and told Ahuja to
return when Ahuja grabbed the envelope out of nowhere. A fight broke out
between the two, and during the struggle, two shots were fired by mistake,
killing Ahuja. After the shooting, Nanavati returned to his car and drove it to
the police station, where he surrendered. As a result, the petitioner fired a
shot at the Ahuja in response to a grave and unexpected provocation, and even
if he did commit a crime, it would be culpable homicide rather than murder.
Contentions
of the respondent
The
first bone of contention was that Ahuja had just emerged from the shower
wearing only a towel. When his body was discovered, his towel was still on him.
It hadn't loosened or fallen off, which was improbable in the event of a fight.
Nanavati drove them to a movie theatre, dropped them there, and then proceeded
to his ship to collect his pistol, all on false pretences, following Sylvia's
confession. This shows that he had enough time to cool off, that the
provocation was neither grave nor unexpected, and that Nanavati planned the
murder. Anjani, Ahuja's servant and a natural witness, testified that four
shots were fired in fast succession and that the entire event took less than a
minute, ruling out a scuffle. Nanavati left Ahuja's house without telling his
sister Mamie, who was in another room, that it had been an accident. Nanavati
acknowledged to shooting Ahuja and even corrected a mistake of his name in the
police record, proving Nanavati's capacity to think normally, according to the
Deputy Commissioner of Police.
DEFECTS
OF THE LAW
1.
The High Court lacks jurisdiction under section 307 of the CrPC to examine the
facts in order to determine the competency of the Sessions Judge's referral.
2.
The High Court has no power to strike aside a jury's decision on the grounds of
misdirection in charge under section 307(3) of the CrPC.
3.
The charge contains no ambiguities.
4.
The jury's decision was such that it could have been reached by a group of
reasonable men based on the facts presented to them.
5.
Because the dead was shot under grave and unexpected provocation, the
accused/appellant did not commit murder, but culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.
Rational
A
simple reading of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code states about punishment
for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, where the description states
that whoever
commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with
[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which
the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with
both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death,
but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death.
Inference
On appeal to the
High Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that under Section 307
of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was incumbent on the High Court to decide
the competency of the reference on a perusal of the order of reference by
Hon’ble Sessions Court. The fact that it had no jurisdiction to go into the
evidence for the purpose that Hon’ble High Court was not empowered by Section
307(3)of the Code to set aside the verdict of the jury on the ground that the
jury was erroneous and that the was verdict perverse.
The words
"for the ends of justice" in section 307 indicate that the Judge
disagreeing with the verdict must be of the opinion that the verdict was one
which no reasonable body of men could reach on the evidence, coupled with the
words 'clearly of the opinion' gave the Judge a wide and comprehensive
discretion to suit different situations. Therefore, the Judge disagreed with
the verdict and recorded the grounds of his opinion, the reference was
competent, irrespective of the question whether the Judge was right in so
differing from the jury or forming such an opinion as to the verdict. There is
nothing in Section 307(1) of the Code that lends support to the contention that
though the Judge had complied with the necessary conditions, the High Court
should reject the reference without going into the evidence if the reasons
given in the order of reference did not sustain the view expressed by the
Judge.
Section 307(3)
of the Code by empowering the High Court either to acquit or convict the
accused after considering the entire evidence, giving due weight to the opinion
of the Sessions Judge and the jury, virtually conferred the functions both of
the jury and the Judge on it.
In the light of
contentions raised, arguments advanced and evidence adduced, the Supreme Court
upheld the punishment granted by the High Court of Bombay and convicted him
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
CONCLUSION
K.M.
Nanavati's case was one of the most contentious cases heard by the Indian
judiciary. The case garnered extensive media coverage, which most likely
influenced the jury's decision. The case went from a not guilty jury verdict to
being convicted guilty of murder by the Supreme Court.
In
view of the facts and circumstances of the current case, we must recognise the
Court's decision. Punishments should not be presumptively inflicted or
presumed. The punishment for a crime should be proportional to the crime done.
The Nanavati case shows how penal provisions are rigidly interpreted. The
Court's decision was based on the nature of the crime he committed, not on the
man's honour or social standing.
0 Comments