K.M. Nanavati Vs.

State of Maharashtra

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of the degree B.Com.,LL.B. (Hons)

Submitted by

Gourav Girish Dwivedi

Registration No. BC0150005

Submitted to

Anshuman Singh

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

TIRUCHIRAPPALLI – 620 009

November, 2015
 Table of Contents
Reference 1
Facts 2

Procedural History 3

Legal Issue 4

Arguments 5

Judgment 6
Critical Comment……………………………………………………………………...7
References
 Facts of the Case
One K.M. Nanavati, a Naval Officer, was put up on trial under ss. 302 and 304 of the Indian
Penal Code for the alleged murder of his wife's paramour Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja. The
prosecution case in substance was that on the day of occurrence his wife Sylvia confessed to
him of her illicit intimacy with Ahuja and the accused went to his ship, took from its stores
a revolver and cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the same, went to Ahuja's flat, entered his
bed room and shot him dead. The defence, inter alia, was that as his wife did not tell him if
Ahuja would marry her and take charge of their children, he decided to go and settle the
matter with him. He drove his wife and children to a cinema where he dropped them
promising to pick them up when the show ended at 6 p.m., drove to the ship and took the
revolver and the cartridges on a false pretext intending to shoot him.

Then he drove his car to Ahuja's office and not finding him there, drove to his flat. After an
altercation a struggle ensued between the two and in course of that struggle two shots went
off accidentally and hit Ahuja. Evidence, oral and documentary, was adduced in the case
including three letters written by Sylvia to Ahuja. Evidence was also given of an extra-
judicial confession made by the accused to Prosecution Witness (P.W) 12 who deposed that
the accused when leaving the place of occurrence told him that he had a quarrel with Ahuja
as the latter had 'connections' with his wife and therefore he killed him. This witness also
deposed that he told P. W. 13, Duty Officer at the Police Station, what the accused had told
him. This statement was not recorded by P. W. 13 and was denied by him in his cross-
examination. In his statement to the investigation officer it was also not recorded. The jury
returned a verdict of 'not guilty' on both the charges by a majority of 8: 1.

The Sessions Judge disagreed with that verdict, as in his view, no reasonable body of men
could bring that verdict on the evidence and referred the matter to the High Court under s.
307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The two Judges of the Division Bench who heard the
matter agreed in holding that the appellant was guilty under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. One of them held that there
were misdirection in the Sessions Judge's charge to the jury and on a review of the evidence
came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of murder and the verdict of the jury was
perverse. The other Judge based his conclusion on the ground that no reasonable body of
persons could come to the conclusion that jury had arrived at. On appeal to this Court by
special leave it was contended on behalf of the appellant, K.M.Nanavati that under s. 307 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure it was incumbent on the High Court to decide the
competency of the reference on a perusal of the order of reference itself since it had no
jurisdiction to go into the evidence for that purpose, that the High Court was not empowered
by s. 307(3) of the Code to set aside the verdict of the jury on the ground that there were
misdirection in the charge, that there were no misdirection in the charge nor was the verdict
perverse and that since there was grave and sudden provocation the offence committed if
any, was not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
 Procedural History
This case’s procedural history is very important in Indian Legal History as this was the case
where Jury delivered their opinion last time in India after which the system of Jury Trial
ended and as Ram Jethmalani says, the Art of Cross examination also ended with this case.

K. M. Nanavati who on advice of his Commanding Officer confessed his crime to at a Local
Police Station in Bombay to the Duty officer of that Police Station also the Prosecution
witness 13 in this case and thereafter, hearing of this case starts in 24 hours of his arrest.

In the court although Nanavati confessed to his crime but pleaded Not Guilty under the
exception ‘Grave and Sudden Provocation’ mentioned in Section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code.

The Prosecution also brought into light that Nanavati although aggrieved by his wife,
Sylvia’s illicit affair with Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja, dropped her and their children to a
Cinema theatre promising to pick them up at 6 P.M. the same evening, and going to his Ship,
picking up his Revolver on a false pretext and thereafter killing Ahuja in his own bedroom
proves that he was in full control of his actions and therefore this exception is not valid in the
light of this case.

8 members of Jury of total 9 members voted to acquit Nanavati whereas 1 member voted
against this. The Sessions Court Judge under Section 307 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1870
referred this case to the High Court, as in his view, no reasonable body of men could reach
this verdict.

The two Judges of the Division Bench heard this matter and agreed in holding that the
appellant Mr. Nanavati was guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
him to undergo Rigorous Life Imprisonment.

Again in the appeal in the Supreme Court by Mr. Nanavati, High Court’s decision was
reserved and his appeal was dismissed.
Legal Issue