CASE COMMENT
NANAVATI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Appellant- Nanavati
Respondent- State
of Maharashtra
Court: The
Supreme Court of India
Bench: Subbarao,
K.Das, S.K DayalRaghubar
Decided On: 24.11.1961
Citation: AIR 1962
SC 605, 1962 SCR Supl.(1) 567
Introduction
The case of K.M. Nanavati v. the State of Maharashtra
is one of the landmark judgments in the history of the Indian Judiciary. The
case received unprecedented media coverage. It is also known to be the last
case to be heard as a jury trial in India since the Government abolished the
jury system as a result of this case. This case highlights an important concept
of ‘Grave and Sudden Provocation’.
FACTS
● The accused, Nanavati, at the time of the alleged
murder, was second in command of the Indian Naval Ship “Mysore”. He married
Sylvia in 1949 and had three children.
● Since the time of marriage, the couple was living in
different places, Finally, they shifted to Bombay.
● In the same city the deceased Ahuja was doing
business in automobiles and in the year 1956, Agniks, who were common friends
of Nanavati’s and Ahujas, introduced Ahuja and his sister to Nanavati’s. Ahuja
was unmarried and was about 34 years of age at the time of his death.
● Nanavati, as a Naval Officer, was frequently going
away from Bombay in his ship, leaving his wife and children in Bombay.
● Gradually, the friendship developed between Ahuja
and Sylvia, which culminated in illicit intimacy between them.
● On April 27, 1959, Sylvia confessed to Nanavati of
her illicit intimacy with Ahuja.
● Enraged at the conduct of Ahuja, Nanavati went to
his ship, took from the stores of the ship a semi-automatic revolver and six
cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the same, went to the flat of Ahuja
entered his bedroom and shot him dead.
● Thereafter, the accused surrendered himself to the
police. He was put under arrest and in due course, he was committed to the
Sessions for facing a charge under s. 302 of the Indian Penal code.
● Thereafter, he drove his wife, two of his children
and a neighbor’s child in his car to a cinema, dropped them there and promised
to come and pick them up at 6 P.M. when the show ended. He represented to the
authorities in the ship, that he wanted to draw a revolver and six rounds from
the stores of the ship as he was going to drive alone to Ahmednagar by night,
though the real purpose was to shoot himself.
● On receiving the revolver and six cartridges, and
put it inside a brown envelope. Then he drove his car to Ahuja’s office, and
not finding him there, he drove to Ahuja’s flat, rang the doorbell, and, when
it was opened by a servant, walked to Ahuja’s bed-room, went into the bedroom
and shut the door behind him.
● He also carried with him the envelope containing the
revolver. The accused saw the deceased inside the bed-room, called him a filthy
swine and asked him whether he would marry Sylvia and look after the children.
The deceased retorted, “Am I to marry every woman I sleep with?” The accused
became enraged, put the envelope containing the revolver on a cabinet nearby,
and threatened to thrash the deceased.
● The deceased made a sudden move to grasp at the
envelope when the accused whipped out his revolver and told him to get back. A
struggle ensued between the two and during that struggle two shots went off
accidentally and hit Ahuja resulting in his death. After the shooting, the
accused went back to his car and drove it to the police station where he
surrendered himself.
● The trial court convicted under S.304 A of IPC and
in appeal, the high court convert it into S.302 of IPC.
● So the accuse made an appeal before the SC and at
the same time, he made an application to the governor under Art. 161.
ISSUES RAISED
● Whether SLP(Special leave petition) can be
entertained without fulfilling the order under Art. 142?
● Whether the pardoning power of governor and
SLP(Special leave petition) can be moved together?
Answer to issue 1: The SLP was dismissed by the supreme court, by the
majority, holding that the appellant’s SLP could not be lisited for hearing
unless he surrenders under Art. 142 (as per the judgment of HC).
Answer to issue 2: The appellant has made SLP and an application of pardoning power
to the governor. The governor reduced his sentence. The SC held that SLP and
pardoning power cannot operate together both are different. If SLP is filed
then the power of the governor in such condition will be ceased.
● The further court held that the Art.142 and 161 are
different in nature. The two Articles are reconcilable and should be
reconciled. The rule of statutory coexistence stated that it is sometimes
found that the 2 statute conflict, as their objective is different and language
of each is restricted to its own object or subject, so they run parallel and
never meet.
LAW APPLIED:
Code of Criminal Procedure(Act, 5 of 1898), 88. 307,
410, 417, 418 (1), 423(2), 297,155 (1), 162
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), 88. 302,
300, Exception I
Indian Evidence Act,1872 (1 of 1872), 8. 105.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF
PETITIONER
● The accused, at the time of the alleged murder, was
second in command of the Indian Naval Ship “Mysore”. He married Sylvia in 1949
in the registry office at Portsmouth, England. They have three children by the
marriage, a boy aged 9 and 1/2 years, a girl aged 5 and 1/2 years and another
boy aged 3 years. Since the time of marriage, the couple was living at
different places having regard to the exigencies of service of Nanavati.
● Finally, they shifted to Bombay. In the same city,
the deceased Ahuja was doing business in automobiles and was residing, along
with his sister, in a building called “Shreyas” till 1957 and thereafter in
another building called “JivanJyot” in Setalvad Road. In the year 1956, Agniks,
who were common friends of Nanavati’s and Ahujas, introduced Ahuja and his
sister to Nanavati’s.
● Ahuja was unmarried and was about 34 years of age at
the time of his death, Nanavati, as a Naval Officer, was frequently going away
from Bombay in his ship, leaving his wife and children in Bombay. Gradually, a
friendship developed between Ahuja and Sylvia, which culminated in illicit
intimacy between them.
● On April 27, 1959, Sylvia confessed to Nanavati of
her illicit intimacy with Ahuja. Enraged at the conduct of Ahuja, Nanavati went
to his ship, took from the stores of the ship a semi-automatic revolver and six
cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the same, went to the flat of Ahuja
entered his bedroom and shot him dead. Thereafter, the accused surrendered
himself to the police. He was put under arrest and in due course, he was
committed to the Sessions for facing a charge under 302 of the Indian Penal
Code.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF
DEFENDANT
As disclosed in the Statement made by the accused
before the Sessions Court under s. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
his deposition in the said Court: 5
● The accused was away with his ship from April 6,
1959, to April 18, 1959. Immediately after returning to Bombay, he and his wife
went to Ahmednagar for about three days in the company of his younger brother
and his wife. Thereafter, they returned to Bombay and after a few days, his
brother and his wife left them.
● After they had left, the accused noticed that his
wife was behaving strangely and was not responsive or affectionate to him. When
questioned, she used to evade the issue. At noon on April 27, 1959, when they
were sitting in the sitting-room for the lunch to be served, the accused put
his arm around his wife affectionately, when she seemed to go tense and
unresponsive. After lunch, when he questioned her about her fidelity, she shook
her head to indicate that she was unfaithful to him. He guessed that her
paramour was Ahuja.
● As she did not even indicate clearly whether Ahuja
would marry her and look after the children, he decided to settle the matter
with him. Sylvia pleaded with him not go to Ahuja’s house, as he might shoot
him.
● Thereafter, he drove his wife, two of his children
and a neighbor’s child in his car to a cinema, dropped them there and promised
to come and pick them up at 6 P.M. when the show ended. He then drove his car
to his ship, as he wanted to get medicine for his sick dog, he represented to
the authorities in the ship, that he wanted to draw a revolver and six rounds
from the stores of the ship as he was going to drive alone to Ahmednagar by
night, though the real purpose was to shoot himself.
● On receiving the revolver and six cartridges, and
put it inside a brown envelope. Then he drove his car to Ahuja’s office, and
not finding him there, he drove to Ahuja’s flat, rang the doorbell, and, when
it was opened by a servant, walked to Ahuja’s bed-room, went into the bedroom
and shut the door behind him. He also carried with him the envelope containing
the revolver.
● The accused saw the deceased inside the bed-room, called
him a filthy swine and asked him whether he would marry Sylvia and look after
the children. The deceased retorted, “Am I to marry every woman I sleep
with?”
● The accused became enraged, put the envelope
containing the revolver on a cabinet nearby, and threatened to thrash the
deceased. The deceased made a sudden move to grasp at the envelope when the
accused whipped out his revolver and told him to get back. A struggle ensued
between the two and during that struggle two shots went off accidentally and
hit Ahuja resulting in his death. After the shooting the accused went back
to his car and drove it to the police station where he surrendered
himself.
Judgment
Proceedings at Sessions
Court +Jury and High Court:
● The appellant was charged under 302 as well as under
s. 304, Part I, of the Indian Penal Code and was tried by the Sessions Judge,
Greater Bombay, with the aid of a special jury. The jury brought in a verdict
of “not guilty” by 8: 1 under both the sections; but the Sessions Judge did not
agree with the verdict of the jury, as in his view the majority verdict of the
jury was such that no reasonable body of men could, having regard to the
evidence, bring in such a verdict.
● The learned Sessions Judge submitted the case under
307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Bombay High Court after recording
the grounds for his 6 opinion. The said reference was heard by a division bench
of the said High Court consisting of Shelat and Naik, JJ. The two learned
Judges gave separate judgments but agreed in holding that the accused was
guilty of the offence of murder under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Shelat, J., having held that there were
misdirections to the jury, reviewed the entire evidence and came to the
conclusion that the accused was clearly guilty of the offence of murder,
alternatively, he expressed the view that the verdict of the jury was perverse,
unreasonable and, in any event, contrary to the weight of evidence.
Naik, J., preferred to base his conclusion
on the alternative ground, namely, that no reasonable body of persons could
have come to the conclusion arrived at by the jury. 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.
Thereafter, the appeal had been preferred against the
said conviction and sentence
PROCEEDINGS AT SUPREME
COURT
Arguments advanced by Defence Counsel:
Mr. G. S Pathak, learned
counsel for the accused, raised the following points:
● Under 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
High Court should decide whether a reference made by a Sessions Judge was
competent only on a perusal of the order of reference made to it and it
had no jurisdiction to consider the evidence and come to a conclusion whether
the reference was competent or not.
● Under s. 307(3) of the said Code, the High Court had
no power to set aside the verdict of a jury on the ground that there were
misdirections in the charge made by the Sessions Judge.
I here was no misdirections at all in the charge made
by the Sessions Judge, and indeed his charge was fair to the prosecution as
well to the accused.
The verdict of the jury was not perverse and it was
such that a reasonable body of persons could arrive at it on the evidence
placed before them.
In any view, the accused shot at the deceased under
grave and sudden provocation, and therefore even if he had committed an
offence, it would not be murder but only culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.
OBSERVATIONS OF SUPREME
COURT
● The deceased seduced the wife of the accused. She
had confessed to him of her illicit intimacy with the deceased. It was natural
that the accused was enraged at the conduct of the deceased and had, therefore,
sufficient motive to do away with the deceased.
● He deliberately secured the revolver on a false
pretext from the ship, drove to the flat of Ahuja, entered his bed-room
unceremoniously with a loaded revolver in hand and in about a few seconds
thereafter came out with the revolver in his hand.
● The deceased was found dead in his bathroom with
bullet injuries on his body. It is not disputed that the bullets that caused
injuries to Ahuja emanated from the revolver that was in the hand of the
accused. After the shooting, until his trial in the Sessions Court, he did not
tell anybody that he shot the deceased by accident. Indeed, he confessed his
guilt to the chowkidar Puransingh and practically admitted the
same to his colleague Samuel.
● His description of the struggle in the bathroom is
highly artificial and is devoid of all necessary particulars. The injuries
found on the body of the deceased are consistent with the intentional shooting
and the main injuries are wholly inconsistent with accidental shooting when the
victim and the assailant were in close grips. The other circumstances brought
out in the evidence also established that there could not have been any fight
or struggle between the accused and the deceased.
● The court held that the conduct of
the accused clearly shows that the murder was a deliberate and calculated one
and the facts of the case do not attract the provisions of Exceptions 1
of Sec 300 of IPC as the accused also failed to bring the case under
General Exception of IPC by adducing evidence. As a result, the conviction of
the accused under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment
for life. .
IMPACT
● Abolition of Jury trials.
● There was media scrutiny that brought about Nanavati
as a victim of foul play, who even in worst hours stood for honour and
well being of his family.
● Nanavati was pardoned by the then Governor Vijay
Lakshmi Pandit, after spending 3 years in jail.
COMMENT
● According to me, here, the judgment of the Supreme
Court is right as the version given by the accused appears to be highly
improbable. The story of his keeping the revolver on the cabinet is very
unnatural.
● The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court
pronounced Nanavati as not guilty under section 302 under which
Nanavati was charged, with an 8–1 verdict. Mr. RatilalBhaichand Mehta (the
sessions judge) considered the acquittal as perverse and referred the case to
the Bombay High Court.
● The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled
by the presiding judge on four crucial points:
1. The onus of proving that it was an accident and not
premeditated murder was on Nanavati.
2. Was Sylvia’s confession grave provocation for
Nanavati, or any specific incident in Ahuja’s bedroom or both?
3. The judge wrongly told the jury that the
provocation can also come from a third person.
4. The jury was not instructed that Nanavati’sdefense
had to be proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable
doubt in the mind of a reasonable person.
● The weekly tabloid Blitz ,
owned by R. K. Karanjia, a Parsi himself, publicized the story,
published exclusive cover stories and openly supported Nanavati. They portrayed
him as a wronged husband and upright officer, betrayed by a close friend.
● Here, It was claimed that the jury had been
influenced by media and was open to being misled, the Government of India
abolished jury trials soon after in most cases except for Parsis who still have
Jury Trials for their Matrimonial Disputes.
● The aforementioned judgment was able to grab the
attention of the nation owing to the fact that the crime of adultery had given
birth to the crime of murder not amounting to culpable homicide.
● As per the defense case, the accused was thinking of
the future of his wife and children which indicates that he had not only
regained his senses but also was planning for the future.
● The time-lapse between the confession and murder was
sufficient to regain his self-control.
● The mere fact that before the shooting the accused
abused the deceased and the abuse provoked an equally abusive reply could not
conceivably be a provocation for the murder.
Conclusion
The case of K.M. Nanavati was one of the most
contentious matters dealt with by the Indian judiciary. From a jury verdict of
not guilty to being found guilty of murder by the Supreme Court, the case
received extraordinary media coverage, which most likely had a significant
impact on the jury’s decision.
We have to respect the Court’s decision in light of
the facts and circumstances of the current case. Punishments should not be
assumed or presumptively imposed. A crime’s penalty should be proportionate to
the crime committed. Penal rules are strictly interpreted, and the Nanavati
case demonstrates the strict interpretation of penal statutes. The Court’s
decision was based not on the man’s honour or standing in society, but on the
nature of the offence he committed.
0 Comments