This Case commentary is written by Kotla Shiva Kumar , a Law graduate of Central University of Haryana

CITATION- 1962 AIR 605

DATE OF HEARING- 24TH NOV 1961

COURT- Supreme Court Of India

APPELLANT- K.M NANAVATI

RESPONDENT- STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

BENCH- Justice K. Subba Rao , S.K Das , Raghubar Dayal

FACTS OF CASE :

Under provisions 302 and 304, part 1 of the IPC, appellant Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, an officer of command in the Indian Navy, was alleged to have killed Prem Ahuja. Sylvia, the petition -one's wife, fostered an illicit relationship with Mr. Ahuja, a friend of Nanavati, while he was away on employment.

After one of his prolonged travels, Nanavati returned on April 27, 1959. After reaching home, he noticed that his spouse was acting unusually and not offering him much affection or response. He suspected something, so he questioned, and Sylvia confirmed the relationship she had with Ahuja. Later that evening, Nanavati left their two kids and wife Sylvia at a movie theater and proceeded to confront Ahuja.

He proceeded to his ship first. After completing his statutory duties and obtaining his pistol and six gun bullets from the stores beneath bogus circumstances likely going to Ahemadabad, he headed towards Prem Ahuja's workplace. Since he couldn't find him there, he headed to Ahuja's residence, where he spotted Ahuja. The two men were engaged in an intense debate of words. Prem Ahuja was shot three times during the struggle that followed the confrontation, and he died as a result.

Nanavati went straight to the Western Naval Command's Provost Marshal to confess, and he following that turned himself into the Deputy Commissioner's office.

The Sessions Judge did not agree with the jury's finding that he was not convicted

of murder and referred the case to the Bombay High Court. The Bombay High Court found the jury guilty despite dismissing its verdict, under section 302 and sec 304 (1) of IPC.

K.M. Nanavati filed a Special Leave Petition based on Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, challenging his conviction.

ISSUE RAISED :

1. if the Sessions Judge's reference was capable, and if the High Court had authority to examine the facts under the provisions of Section 307 of the CrPC.

2. if the High Court had been permitted by Section 307(3) of the CrPC to set aside the finding of a jury due to misdirection in charge.

3. Whether the murder was planned out or performed in "the heat of the moment"?

4. Is it possible to combine the Governor's pardoning authority with the Special Leave Petition?

5. Is any misdirection caused in charge?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT :

1. Self-Defense: As per Nanavati's argumentative terms, he shot Ahuja for self-protection. They claimed that Nanavati thought his wife's life was in danger jeopardy and that Ahuja had a history of violence.

The defense argued that Ahuja pulled a revolver on Nanavati during their argument when Nanavati went to confront him about his affair with Sylvia. Nanavati fired to defend himself.

2. Provocation: This was a further argument brought up by the prosecution. They maintained that Nanavati acted rashly after Sylvia revealed her affair with Ahuja.

The prosecution argued that it was important to take into account Nanavati's emotional state at the time of the occurrence.

3. The argument made by Nanavati's attorney was that Sylvia talked him out of killing himself when she heard Sylvia's confession, but Sylvia stopped him.

4. When Prem Chand was discovered inside the bedroom, the petitioner labeled him a filthy swine and inquired as to whether he was going to marry Sylvia and take care of the kids. In response, the deceased guy shouted out, "Am I going to marry every woman I have an illicit relationship with?"

5. Furious, the person being charged placed the envelope containing the pistol on a nearby cupboard and made threats to beat the victim.

6. When the accused pulled out his revolver and motioned for the deceased to return, the deceased made a quick move to grab the envelope. They got into a fight, and in the midst of it, Ahuja was unintentionally hit by two bullets, which killed him.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT :

1. Onus of Proving Accident: According to the prosecution, Nanavati had the burden of demonstrating that the incident was an accident rather than an attempted murder.

2. They argued that Nanavati had not shot Ahuja by coincidence but instead by intention.

3. Serious Provocation: The main concern was whether Sylvia's admission of having an extramarital affair with Ahuja had provoked Nanavati unacceptably and violently.

4. The prosecution also brought up the question of whether there was a particular incident in Ahuja's bedroom that could have triggered Nanavati.

5. The first point of contention raised by the respondent concerned the fact that Prem Ahuja just come out from the shower and that his towel was still in place. When it was found, it had remained bound to his body. Surprisingly, given the fight between Nanavati and Prem Ahuja, it has not dropped.

6. He drives them to the movie theater and accumulates them there quietly and calmly after Sylvia reveals them to Nanavati. Following this, he went to his ship and, under pretenses, obtained the revolver. This demonstrates unequivocally that the provocation was not severe nor sudden, and that he had enough time to calm down. On his way, Nanavati had planned the murder.

JUDGEMENT :

High Court Justice Shelat and Naik, J.J., constituted the division bench of the Bombay High Court where they examined the case. Even though the judges reached different conclusions in the case, they ultimately agreed that the accused was guilty of murder by Indian Penal Code Section 302. I would have him imprisoned for life. They concluded that the jury had been deceived, and the judges had found Nanvati guilty of murder after considering all the available evidence. In addition, he believed that the jury's conclusions were illogical and twisted. They occasionally ran counter to the overwhelming body of data.

Apex Court of India was awarded a life sentence for culpable homicide that amounted to murder which upheld the High Court's ruling and maintained that this was a clear instance of premeditated murder.

CONCLUSION :

One of the most notable legal cases in Indian history is K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra. The prosecutors had the burden of proof in this instance, but when Exceptions under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code were applied, the burden of proof moved to the accused, and Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, came into effect.

Jury trials were canceled as a result of this case. The Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court of India both agreed that the jury had been misleading.

The case's influence has persisted in Indian jurisprudence for many decades. The case acted as an example for upcoming generations of academicians and professionals.

REFERNCE:

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1596139/

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_v._State_of_Maharashtra