K.M. Nanavati v. the State of Maharashtra: A Case Analysis

Introduction

The case of K.M.NANAVATI V.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA is one of the landmark judgments in the Indian judiciary. The case of Nanavati was a great sensation at that time and brought a great impact on our law. It is India’s most sensational criminal case. Due to the impact, in this case,  many movies and series are coming out from these facts. This case was the last jury trial in the Indian judiciary.  As a result of this case, the Government abolished the jury system. This case gives a clear insight into some points of the law, especially in the concept of the grave and sudden provocation.

Let’s see the deep analysis of this case.

Facts of the Case

• Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was second in command of the Indian Navy. He was working on the Mysore Navy ship. He lived with his wife ‘Sylvia’ and their three children.
• Due to his work, he was frequently going away from his wife and his children. Meanwhile, One illicit relationship arises between Sylvia and Ahuja.
• Prem Ahuja is a businessman in the same city and also he was a friend of Nanavati.
• One day Sylvia confessed to her husband about her illicit relationship. He got angry at Ahuja.
• Nanavati drove his wife and children to the movie theatre. He promised to pick them up at the correct time.
• Then he went to his ship, from where he got a gun. He then went to Ahuja’s office, where he was not found. After confirming his whereabouts from a servant, he reached the Ahuja flat.
• He met Ahuja and asked about his intentions related to his wife and children. Nanavati said Ahuja, you will marry Sylvia and take care of her children. But Ahuja gives a negative reply to Nanavati’s questions.
• He got angry and shot him. Then Nanavati was surrendered to the police station.
• This case was held in the lower Court, high court, and Supreme Court.
• The petitioner was charged under sections 302 and 304 of the Indian penal code and was held by the session court with the help of the jury. The jury was said “not guilty” to the petitioner. But the session judge did not accept the decision of the jury.
• So this case was filed in the High court under section 307 which is the Code of criminal procedure. Here, the judgement was given that the petitioner was guilty under section 302 of the Indian penal code.
• The appeal was held in the Supreme Court by special leave petition.
• Let’s see what judgements were given to this case.

Legal Background of the Case

This case is mainly focused on the concept of the grave and sudden provocation.

What is meant by grave and sudden provocation?

It deals with exception 1 of section 300 of the Indian penal code. It is the exception of murder. Which States that a person is liable for culpable not amounting to murder when he losses his self-control, and causes the death of another person due to a mistake or an accident.

Grave and sudden provocation consist of three words grave, sudden, and provocation. Grave means the provocation must be grave. The word grave carries the meaning of very serious. Sudden means are immediately or unexpected. Provocation means “A person has committed an offence by stimulating the other person to result in losing self-control”.

Eminent Issues Raised

1. Whether Nanavati shot Ahuja due to the heat of the passion or whether it was a preplanned murder?
2. Whether the High Court has any jurisdiction under section 307 of Crpc, to experience the evidence to decide the ability of the citation by the session judge?

• Whether the High Court has any power under section 307(3) of Crpc to overrule the decision of the jury on grounds of misdirection in charge?

Arguments

The contention of the Appellant

• Learned counsel raised the following points. Under section 307 of Crpc has no jurisdiction to experience the evidence to decide the ability of the citation by the session judge and also the High Court has no power to overrule the decision of the jury on grounds of misdirection in the charge.
• In fact, in this case, Nanavati wanted to kill himself not Ahuja, after hearing about the illicit relationship of his wife. But Sylvia calms him down.
• So he drove his wife and children to the theatre and promised them to pick them up at the correct time. Because he wanted to buy medicine for his sick dog.
• To shoot himself, he needs a revolver. So he said false pretext to his authorities in the ship.
• Then he drove the Ahuja’s office, not finding him there. So he went to Ahuja’s flat, after receiving confirmation of his presence from a servant.
• He met him in his bedroom and asked- Whether he was married to Sylvia and taking care of his children. Ahuja give a negative reply to Nanavati
• So Ahuja stimulate Nanavati for lost his self-control. Due to his provocation, unexpectedly he shot him dead.
• So the accused has committed an offense under grave and sudden provocation and therefore it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

The contentions of the Respondent

• When Nanavati saw the Ahuja, he came out with a towel. After death occurs, his towel was still intact. So this shows there are no struggles between them.
• As well, after Sylvia’s confession, she was trying to manage him to calm down. He drove his wife and children to the theatre. After he receives the pistol under false pretext. So this shows he had enough time for cooling himself and it was neither grave nor sudden provocation. It was a preplanned murder.
• Furthermore, Ahuja’s servant was a testimony here, he was present in the house at the time of that incident. So he was the natural witness. This evidence is enough to prove Nanavati had preplanned the murder.
• When he confessed to shooting Nanavati, the Deputy Commissioner testified to Nanavati that it shows that Nanavati was not dazed.

Judgment

• In the wake of examining the facts of the case, the  Supreme court confirmed that the appellant had not only to evolve his self-control, but he was also concerned about his family’s future.  After his wife confessed, he had enough time to calm down. So It was preplanned only. It’s not come under in grave and sudden provocations.
• The Apex Court concurred on the verdict of the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of IPC was given by the High Court and then dismissed the appeal.

End Result

This judgement becomes a remarkable media coverage. Nanavati becomes a hero after the judgement was given. So common people had given petitioned for his release from the case.  After the Supreme Court judgment, Nanavati appealed for a pardon.  Governor has the power to pardon. So Vijay Lakshmi Pandit was the governor of Maharashtra. At the time of pardon came, he had already been in jail for 3 years. Then he got released. Finally, he lived with his wife and children in Canada.

Conclusion

This is one of the landmark judgements in the record of the Indian judiciary. This judgment impact is very lofty, it reaches high at that time. A few years back, there were not many social media networks for circulating social issues. At that time, it happened only through the newspapers, radio, and television. In this case, Whatever sections are applied, finally, natural justice is merely executed.

The article has been contributed by Atchaya Sekar.

References

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1596139/
• https://lawcirca-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/lawcirca.com/k-m-nanavati-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-case-analysis
• https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summmary-k-m-nnavati-vs-state-of-maharashtra/18888/amp
• https://www.latestlaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Case-Analysis-K.M-Nanavati-v.-State-of-Maharashtra-By-Tanya-Tikiya.pdf