K.M NANAVATI V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

 

AUTHORED BY -  AAKANKSHA SINGH

 

 

AIR 1962 SC 605

Facts:

People involved:

• Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati who was commander in the Indian Navy.
• Sylvia, who was born in England and was married to Kawas Nanavati.
• Prem Ahuja was a wealthy businessman who was a close friend of Nanavati.

 

Timeline:

• 18 April 1959- Nanavati returned from his ship. After returning on several occasions tried to be affectionate with his wife but she was behaving strangely to him.
• 27 April 1959- Sylvia confessed her relationship with Prem Ahuja to her husband. On the same day, he dropped Sylvia and two kids to the movie theater. He went to the naval base, collected his pistol on a false pretext from the store along with six bullets, completed his official duties and proceeded to Ahuja’s office.Because he couldn't find him there he went to Prem’s flat.
• Nanavati walked into Ahuja’s bedroom and closed the door behind him. A little later, three shots rang out. Ahuja, clad only in a towel, lay slumped on the floor. Nanavati walked out of the apartment, past the cries of Mamie.
• Nanavati then went to the nearest Police station to surrender himself. [1]

 

 

 

Arguments:

K.M. Nanavati:

• The defense team put forward that the shooting happened because of sudden and grave provocation. They tried to put the act as culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
• The defense put forward their version of the incident. Hearing Sylvia's confession about her and Prem, an enraged Nanavati wanted to shoot himself, but was calmed down by Sylvia, who told him that he was not to be blamed and there was no reason that he should shoot himself. Since Sylvia did not tell him whether Prem intended to marry her, Nanavati sought to find it out for himself.[2] An angry Nanavati swore at Prem and asked him whether he would marry Sylvia and look after his children to which Prem replied, “will I marry every woman I sleep with?”, which further enraged Nanavati.

 

Prosecution Version:

• The prosecution’s version of the story and their counter-points against the defense's version were based on replies by witnesses and backed by evidence.
• The towel that Ahuja was wearing was intact on his body and had neither loosened nor fallen off. In case of a scuffle, it is highly improbable that the towel would have stayed intact.
• After Sylvia's confession, a calm and collected Nanavati dropped his family to the theater, drove to his naval base and according to the Navy log, had acquired a gun and rounds, under false pretext. This indicated that the provocation was neither grave nor sudden but rather a planned murder.

 

Procedural history:

1. Jury trial: the jury in the greater Bombay sessions court had only one task: to pronounce a Nanavati guilty or not guilty under the charges. The jury in the greater Bombay session pronounced Nanavati as not guilty with an 8:1 verdict. Mr. Ratilal Bhaichand Mehta (the session judge) took a historic decision of overturning the jury’s decision. He referred the case to the Bombay High court for a retrial [3]as it was noticed that the jury had been influenced by the media.
2. Bombay High: the high court agreed with the prosecution’s argument. The bench held that the appellant was guilty under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
3. Supreme Court: K.M. Nanavati appealed to the Supreme Court by Special leave petition and he also made an application to the governor. Thus, the matter came before the Supreme Court of India.

 

Questions raised:

1. Whether this act of murder comes under grave and sudden provocation and the culpable homicide not amounting to murder or not?
2. Whether the pardoning power of the governor and the special leave petition can be moved together?

 

Judgment-

The test of sudden and grave provocation:

• Along with many exceptions in section 300 of IPC one of them is sudden and grave provocation. It happens when a person is killed in the heat of the moment, that person is liable for culpable homicide and not amounting to murder.
• The test of “grave and sudden” provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self control.
• In K.M. Nanavati, an argument can be made that the final act of the deceased, where he stated, “Am I to marry every woman I sleep with?” Fulfills the requirement of immediacy.[4]

 

On the first issue, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which held K.M. Nanavati guilty under section 302 Of IPC which talks about Punishment for murder- whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, shall be liable to fine.

 

 

Reasoning:

1. There was a time lapse between Sylvia's confession and murder of Prem Ahuja. That was sufficient to regain self control.
2. Nanavati asked Ahuja whether he would marry Sylvia and take care of the children. So, he was thinking of the future of his wife and children. This indicates that he had not only regained his senses, but also was planning for the future.
3. Before shooting Ahuja, Nanavati abused him, which provoked an equally abusive reply. But this cannot be provocation for murder. [5]

 

Pardoning power of the governor and Special leave petition:

The apex court held that the governor’s power to pardon and special leave petition could not be exercised simultaneously and both of them could not be moved together. If a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court then the pardoning power of the governor was terminated.[6] The Supreme Court also held that the power of the governor’s pardon application and the Special leave petition cannot be pursued simultaneously. If a special leave petition is issued, the governor’s authority will be revoked.[7]

 

Reasoning:

The Supreme Court reasoned that as per the ‘rule of statutory coexistence’, if two statues are found in conflict as their objectives are different, then the language of each statue is restricted to its own object or subject. They run parallel and never meet.[8]

 

Nanavati was pardoned by the governor Vijay Lakshmi Pandit after spending 3 years in jail.

 

significance:

• K.M. Nanavati case was one of the most famous jury trials in India. It changed the Indian justice system forever. It was one of the last cases to be heard as jury trial in India, as the government abolished jury trial as a result of the case.
• The case also goes to show the power media holds in creating perceptions about a person. As the weekly tabloid Blitz, owned by 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.
• Such crimes with so many twists and turns weren’t common in India. People found the whole incident to be interesting. The confessions made in the court were amusing to people and it shows. In 1963 ‘Yeh Rastey hain pyaar ke’ was the first Bollywood Film which seemed to exploit the case. The famous 2016 film Rustom, starring Akshay Kumar,was a fictionalized account of the KM Nanavati Case. And till this day multiple T.V. Shows and movies are inspired by this case.

 

---

[1]https://www.mansworldindia.com/entertainment/cinema/love-death-and-scandal-in-bombay-nanavati-case-inspired-film-rustom-the-real-story/amp/

[2] http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=4062

[3] http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=4062

[4] https://theleaflet.in/case-for-objective-standards-to-determine-grave-and-sudden-provcation-as-exception-to-murder/#:~:text=The%20graveness%20and%20suddenness%20of,the%20provocation%20of%20such%20nature.

[5] Important Judgment that transformed India by Alex Andrews George

[6] https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9188-case-analysis-km-nanavati-v-s-state-of-maharashtra-1961-.html#:~:text=If%20a%20special%20leave%20petitioner,the%20powers%20conferred%20on%20him.

[7] https://lawbhoomi.com/case-analysis-k-m-nanavati-v-the-state-of-maharashtra/

[8] Important Judgment that changed India by Alex Andrews George