Name of the Student : Rahil Hussain

Registration Number :18DBALB033

Programme :B.A LLB(HONS.)

Semester :VIII

Course :Criminal Law-II

Course Code :5BAL802

Component :Case Study

Date of Submission :10/04/22

Submitted to : Prof Nidhi Saroj

Contents
Case: K. M. Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605........................ 3
Bench: K. Subbarao, S. K. Das, Raghubar Dayal ............................................................ 3
Laws applied: IPC, CrPC, Indian Evidence Act .............................................................. 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
Facts: ................................................................................................................................ 3
Issues: ............................................................................................................................... 3
Arguments from Petitioners: ........................................................................................... 4
Arguments from Respondants: ....................................................................................... 4
Judgement: ...................................................................................................................... 4
Conclusion:........................................................................................................................5
Case: K. M. Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra AIR 1962
SC 605

Bench: K. Subbarao, S. K. Das, Raghubar Dayal

Laws applied: IPC, CrPC, Indian Evidence Act

Introduction:
The Accused in this case Nanavati was a naval officer who was put on trial under section
302 of IPC for the alleged murder of his wife’s paramour and had an important role too
play in the abolishment of jury trials in India.

Facts:
1. The Accused in this case was Second in command of an Indian Naval ship called
the “Mysore” and was married with three children to Sylvia.
2. Due to the nature of his service, the Accused would find himself away from his
family for large stretches of time. It was during these gaps that the wife, Sylvia met
the deceased and later paramour, Prem Ahuja.
3. On April 18, 1959, Nanavati returned from duty only to be given the cold shoulder
by his wife. This went on for a while and culminated with the confrontation on her
faithfulness. Not satisfied with her lackluste response the accused arrived at the
conclusion that his wife was having an illicit affair with the deceased.
4. The Accused drove his family to the movies with the promise that he’d pick them
up later. He then proceeded to his ship to arm himself with a revolver under false
pretenses.
5. The Accused then drove to the deceased’s house and failing to find him there
continued to his flat.
6. Upon reaching said flat, the accused confirmed the location of the deceased
through his servant and confronted him about the affair with his wife.
7. It is alleged that the accused shot the deceased when he couldn’t give a satisfying
answer to the accusations levied against him. After which the accused drove to the
closest police station and confessed.
8. Nanavati was declared not guilty by a jury verdict of 8:1. However, the Sessions
Judge disagreed with this decision of the jury and believed that no reasonable
body of men could reach that verdict based on the evidence produced. The matter
was referred to a Division Bench who held the accused/appellant guilty.

Issues:
A. If the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 307 of the CrPC to examine
the facts in order to determine the competency of the Sessions Judge’s referral?
B. If the High Court had the power to strike aside a jury’s decision on the grounds of
misdirection in charge under Section 307(3) of the CrPC?
C. If there was an element of misdirection in the charge
D. Whether the jury’s decision was such that it might have been reached by a group
of reasonable men based on the facts presented to them.
E. Was act done in the heat of the moment or was it premeditated
Arguments from Petitioners:
• The council for the petitioners argued that after hearing Sylvia’s confession,
Nanavati wanted to kill himself, but his wife managed to calm him down. He
planned to find out whether Ahuja wanted to marry her or not because she didn’t
inform him. As a result, he dropped his wife and two children off at the movie
theatre and drove to his ship in his car.
• The false pretenses that Nanavati informed the authorities on the ship was that
he wanted to take the revolver from the ship because he was going to drive alone
to Ahmednagar by night, but he actually wanted \ to shoot himself.
• Nanavati then drove to Ahuja’s office, but when he didn’t find him there, he drove
to Ahuja’s flat, which was unlocked by a servant, and walked to Ahuja’s bedroom,
closing the door behind him.
• When Nanavati saw Ahuja inside the bedroom, he labelled him a dirty swine and
asked if he would marry Sylvia and care for the children. “Am I supposed to marry
every woman I sleep with?” Ahuja raged. Nanavati became enraged, stowed the
revolver which was in an envelope in a nearby cabinet, and threatened to beat him.
When Ahuja made a sudden grab at the envelope, Nanavati drew his revolver and
told Ahuja to return. A scuffle erupted between the two, and during the struggle,
two rounds were mistakenly fired, killing Ahuja.
• Nanavati returned to his car after the shooting and drove it to the police station,
where he surrendered. Hence, the petitioner shot at the Ahuja in response to a
grave and sudden provocation, and even if he did commit an offence, it would be
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Arguments from Respondants:

• Their contention was that Ahuja had just gotten out of the shower while wearing
a towel. His towel was still on his body when his body was discovered. It hadn’t
loosened or fallen off, which was exceedingly unlikely in the event of a scuffle.
• Following Sylvia’s confession, a calm and composed Nanavati drove them to a
movie theatre, dropped them off, and then went to his ship to get his pistol, all on
false pretenses. This demonstrates that he had sufficient cooling time, that the
provocation was neither grave nor sudden, and that Nanavati had premeditated
the murder.
• Anjani, Ahuja’s servant who was there at the time of the incident and was a natural
witness, testified that four shots were fired in rapid succession and that the entire
event occurred in less than a minute, ruling out a scuffle.
• Nanavati exited Ahuja’s residence without informing his sister Mamie, who was
present in another room, that it was an accident.
• According to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nanavati admitted to shooting
Ahuja and even rectified the misspelling of his name in the police record,
demonstrating Nanavati’s ability to think normally.

Judgement:
A. Scope of High Courts power Under S.307 of the CrPC.
IT was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme court that in situations where the judge
does not agree with the verdict of the jurors, he can under subsection (1) of section
307 of CrPC refer the case to the High Court. The two conditions necessary for the
same are: (1) the judge shall disagree with the verdict of the jurors, and (2) he shall
believe that the verdict of the jury was such that no reasonable men could have
reached. The order of referral would be competent if and only if these two
conditions are met otherwise it would be termed as incompetent and thus rejected
by the High Court.
 B. Misdirection of Charge
The Court agreed with the findings of the High Court on misdirections of a
charge made by the Judge. It stated that the question of whether a
misdirection vitiated the verdict of the jury has to be seen from the standpoint
of the possible effect that the said misdirection had on the jury who are laymen.
The Apex Court further stated that the object of charge to the jury by the Judge
is to explain and place before them the facts and circumstances of the case. It
is the duty of the Judge to clearly explain the points of law, their implications
and put forth all the evidence before the jury so as to enable them in arriving
at the right decision.

C. Burden of Proof
In Indian law, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the
prosecution. But, when an accused relies upon any exceptions as provided in
the IPC or any other special exception, section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act
comes into action. The Court shall presume against the accused and now the
burden is thrown upon him to rebut this presumption. Until then, the Court
shall disregard the existence of circumstances that bring the case within the
exceptions.
The Court further stated that this presumption and shift in the burden of proof
does not free the prosecution from its burden of proving the ingredients of the
offence with which the accused is charged. This burden never shifts. There is
no conflict between the general burden of the prosecution and the special
burden of the accused. The failure on the part of the accused to rebut the
presumption against him would not absolve the prosecution from proving the
ingredients of the offence.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court agreed with the decision of conviction of the
accused/appellant under section 302 of IPC given by the High Court and dismissed
the appeal.

Conclusion:
Throughout the entire case there was an additional layer of media trial that was also being
conducted. A case for the court of public opinion as you may. It was precisely this situation
that concluded with Nanavati being seen as a hero of legend who loved family above all
and cut down any who besmirched him such as the deceased who was considered the
villain who tempted Nanavati’s wife away from him. He had the support of the people
which is why when the Jury found him to be non-guilty by a verdict of 8:1 it sent a wave
of happiness amongst his supporters.
This is a landmark judgment that becomes even more relevant in the present times where
media trials have become a common practice. This judgment goes on to show that the law
of the land is always going to be above popular public opinion and influential connections.
It is the duty and responsibility of the Courts to uphold the principles of the rule of law
and natural justice. The Supreme Court has thus once again shown that no one is above
the law.