This Case Commentary is written by Mayank Upadhyay, a Third-Year law student of Delhi Metropolitan Education

INTRODUCTION

[The case of K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra is considered one of the most important landmark judgments in shaping or reforming the Indian Legal System. This is the last case that was decided by the Jury as it resulted in abolishing the Jury Trial system. This case is not only about the reformation of the legal system, the abolishment of Jury Trials, and the murder of Prem Ahuja by a naval commander; on the other hand, this case is also known as the Epicentre of Media Trials as media influenced many people and started to create a sense of haste between two religious groups (Parsis and Sindhis).]1

CASE DETAILS

Case Name: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: AIR 1962 SC 605

Date of Judgement: 24th November 1961

Bench: SK Das, Raghubar Dayal and K. Subbarao

BRIEF FACTS

Around 1950 – 51, Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati moved to Bombay (present-day Mumbai) with his wife, Sylvia Nanavati, and his 3 children. They met there with the Sindhi Businessman, Prem Ahuja who was living in the same city as a common friend in 1956. Sylvia fell in love with Prem Ahuja and underwent various illicit encounters when KM Nanavati went for his duty. She even wanted to marry Prem Ahuja. On, 27th April 1959, when Nanavati came back from duty, he wanted to be affectionate and wanted to spend time with Sylvia but she didn’t respond. When he questions Sylvia about not responding, she confesses her feelings for Prem Ahuja to her husband. Thus, after hearing about the extramarital affair of his wife with his neighbour, he went to his ship and carried a loaded handgun, and headed to Prem Ahuja’s office. When he didn’t find Ahuja in his office, he drove to Ahuja’s house went to his bedroom, and fatally shot him with three bullet shots.

1ANJALI PRAKASH, “Case Study: KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra” (2024) https://www.thelextimes.com/k-m-nanavati-v-state-of-maharashtra/ accessed 18th September 2024

Initial, the jury with an 8:1 verdict didn’t find Mr. Nanavati guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but later the sessions judge (Mr. Ratilal B. Mehta) used Section 307 of CrPC and sent this case to the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. Bombay High Court after hearing the matter held Nanavati guilty of murder under Section 302 of IPC. Finally, the appeal was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

KEY ISSUES RAISED

[Issue – 1: Whether there is a lack of authority by the High Court to review the evidence and assess the suitability of the recommendation of Sessions Judge as required under Section 307 of CrPC?

Issue – 2: Whether the High Court have any authority to invalidate a verdict of the jury due to misdirection in the case as under Section 307 of CrPC?

Issue 3: Whether the charges imposed had any misdirection.

Issue – 4: Whether the offense is a ‘premeditated murder’ or is the murder carried out in just the “heat of the moment”?

Issue – 5: Is it possible to combine the governor’s pardoning and Special Leave Petition?]2

SUBMISSIONS BY PETITIONERS

Nanavati’s counsels had submitted that it was not a premeditated murder but a murder done as a grave and sudden provocation. They submitted that Mr. Nanavati wanted to commit suicide after learning about the extramarital affair of his wife with Prem Ahuja. He then drove his wife and 3 children to the theatre went to his ship and took the handgun and 6 bullets that he had taken to shoot himself (as stated by Nanavati’s Advocates). He then moved to Ahuja’s office and when he didn’t find him, he moved to his house and went to Ahuja’s bedroom. He then asked Mr. Prem Ahuja will he marry his wife and look after his children, to which he replied, “Should I marry each woman I had sex with?” This made Nanavati angry, he took out a revolver from the envelope and shot 3 guns in a filthy fight. Thus, they claimed that he should be saved under the defence of grave and sudden provocation.

2Lawfoyer, “KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra” https://lawfoyer.in/k-m-nanavati-v-state-of-maharashtra/ accessed 18th September 2024

SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENT

The first submission made by Ahuja’s counsels was a towel as when a dead body was found there was a towel worn by Prem Ahuja and it was unlikely that the towel had not fallen off during the fight. Secondly, they claimed that after knowing the truth from Sylvia, he went to his ship and took a revolver by making pretences that he wanted to kill him but in reality, he murdered Prem Ahuja. As a witness, Ahuja’s servant said that three shots were fired in quick succession and took less than a minute which can’t be possible when there was a fight. As per the Deputy Commissioner, after shooting Prem Ahuja, Nanavati corrected his name misspelling in the police file which shows that he is of rational thought. Thus, Respondents submitted that it was not murder in the heat of the moment but a premeditated murder.

JUDGEMENT BY HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

After hearing all the evidence and facts from both sides, The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the murder was premeditated and not occurred in the heat of the moment. Thus, as per the Apex Court, the ground of grave and sudden provocation couldn’t be laid. For this opinion, the Supreme Court stated that from dropping his wife and children at the theatre to shooting Mr. Ahuja, he had enough time to collect his thoughts and make his decision. Thus, this can’t be said an accidental but a fully planned murder. Thus, the Supreme Court held Mr. Nanavati guilty of murder under Section 302 of IPC and punished him with life imprisonment upholding the decision of Bombay High Court. The apex court also stated that if the Special Leave Petition is submitted to the Hon’ble Court then the governor can’t exercise his/her pardoning power.

But in contravention to this, the then governor of Maharashtra (Vijay Lakshmi Pandit) overreached the authority granted to her as per the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

CONCLUSION

This case is considered as India’s one of the most controversial cases which led to a drastic and significant change in the Indian Legal system by abolishing the jury trials. This case was not just famous for this but this case also increased the viewer’s attention and it became a hot topic for debate whether Mr. Nanavati did right by murdering Mr. Ahuja or whether he should be punished. This case also led to a massive revolt between the Parsis and Sindhis. Nanavati’s case is just not considered a historical precedent in Indian Jurisprudence but also an epic entry of Media Trials because of the active participation of the famous news magazine Blitz headed by R.K. Karanjia. This is the reason why KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra is the historical landmark judgment.

[Rustom, a famous Bollywood movie was based on the story of this case.]6 and [The web series directed by Balaji Telefilms, ‘The Verdict’ was a web series based on this case]7

PRECEDENTS REFERRED

1. [Ramanugrah Singh v. The King Emperor 1946]3

2. [Akhlakali Hayatalli v. The State of Bombay 1953]4

3. [Sashi Mohan Debnath & Ors. v. State of West Bengal 1957]5

3(1946) 48 BOMLR 768

41954 AIR 173

51958 AIR 194

6https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rustom_(film)

7https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Verdict_%E2%80%93_State_vs_Nanavati