IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1960

IN THE MATTER OF;-

K . M . NANAVATI PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT

FACTS

1.The petitioner K.M. Nanavati, an Indian Naval Officer, shifted to Bombay with his wife

Sylvia and their children. A businessman named Prem Bhagwan Ahuja was residing with his

sister in the same city.

2.In 1956, Ahuja and his sister were introduced to Nanavatis through Agniks, who were

common acquaintances of Ahuja and Nanavatis. When Nanavati was frequently away from

Bombay on his official duty for longer durations then Sylvia, his wife, fell in love with Prem

Ahuja and developed Illicit relations with him. When Nanavati returned from his ship he tried

to be affectionate to his wife to which she was not being responsive on multiple occasions.

3.On 27 April 1959, Nanavati asked his wife if she had been faithful to him. She merely

shook her head to indicate that she was not. On 27 April 1959, Sylvia confessed to her

husband about the Illicit relationship with Prem Ahuja.

4.In the heat of agony, Nanavati went to his ship to procure a loaded revolver and then went

to the office of Prem Ahuja. On not finding him at the office he drove to Ahuja’s residence

and shot him dead.

5.K.M. Nanavati, the accused, initially was declared not guilty under section 302 by the Jury

with an 8:1 verdict. The case was then referred by the Sessions Judge to the Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay under section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6.The Hon’ble High Court declared the accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC. An appeal

was finally made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1.Whether 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.

2.Whether 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.

3.Whether there were any misdirection in the charge.

4.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.

5.Whether the act was done in “the heat of the moment” or whether it was a premeditated

murder?

6.Whether the pardoning power of the Governor and The Special Leave Petition can be

clubbed together?

CONTENTION OF THE PETITONER

The petitioner argued that when sylvia told Nanavati with Prem Ahuja, he wanted to commit

suicide. Nanavati decided to find out whether Ahuja would marry his wife sylvia or not. So

he dropped hid wife and three children to the cinema and went to his ship to take his revolver.

When Nanavati reached Ahuja’s house and asked him whether he would marry Sylvia and

take care of their three children, Ahuja replied,” Am I bound to marry every woman I sleep

with? Nanavati was enraged on hearing this and both of them engaged in a scuffle and in that

fight Nanavati shot at Ahuja and he died.

Nanavati immediately went to the police station to confess his crime and surrender himself.

The petitioner argued that Ahuja’s statement enraged Nanavati and that there was grave and

sudden provocation from the side of Ahuja dur to which Nanavati could not control his anger
and shot at Ahuja. Hence Nanavati was not liable for murder but for culpable homicide not

amounting to murder.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT

The first argument made by the respondent was the Prem Ahuja came out of the shower with

a towel. When his body was found in the bathroom, the towel was still intact and if Nanavati

and Ahuja had a fight then it should have come out however, it did not which raised a doubt.

Also, when Sylvia told Nanavati about er relationship with Ahuja then Nanavati dropped her

and their children to the cinema which shows thar he had enough time to calm down and that

the provocation was not gave and that it was planned murder.

Further, according to Ahuja’s servant Anjani, who at home when the entire incident took

place, a total of four round were fired and the entire incident took place within a minute. The

deputy director also claimed that Nanavati did not feel confused by acknowledging that he

had killed Ahuja which clearly shows that it was a planned murder.

JUDGEMENT

As pointed out by the Supreme Court, confession by the wife of adultery was grave but

Ahuja was not present at the time the confession was made, hence, the element of the

suddenness of killing was missing. Because three hours had transpired between the time of

confession and the time of the killing, the Court concluded that a reasonable man had had

enough time to cool down since the provocation.

The Supreme Court ruled that the accused’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the High Court are legitimate, and there

are no grounds for interference.

1.The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that if the judge disagrees with the jury’s decision, he

can refer the case to the High Court under subsection (1) of section 307 of the CrPC. The

following two elements must be met: (1) the judge must disagree with the jury’s verdict, and

(2) he must believe that the jury’s verdict was one that no reasonable man could have

reached. The referral order will be competent if and only if these two conditions are met;

otherwise, it will be deemed incompetent and will be rejected by the High Court.

2.When the High Court determines that the order of reference is competent, it must perform

the responsibilities set forth in subsection (3) of section 307 of the CrPC. Under this

provision, the High Court must review all evidence, give due weight to the judge’s and jury’s

opinions, and then acquit or condemn the accused. The defendant’s learned counsel

contended that the opposite meaning would contradict the objective of this clause.

3.The Court concurred with the High Court’s conclusions about the Judge’s allegation of

misdirection. It noted that the question of whether a misdirection tainted the jury’s verdict

must be considered in light of the likely impact that the misdirection had on the lay jury. The

Supreme Court went on to say that the purpose of the judge’s charge to the jury is to explain

and present the facts and circumstances of the case to them. The Judge’s job is to make sure

that the jury understands the law and its ramifications, as well as to present all of the evidence

to them so that they can make the best conclusion possible.

4.After reviewing all the evidence, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the conduct of the

appellant was inconsistent with his defence that the deceased was shot by accident. In
contrast, he had the mentality of someone who had planned and calculatedly exacted

vengeance on his wife’s lover. On a false pretext, he secured the revolver and marched into

Ahuja’s bedroom with a loaded weapon. Despite having numerous opportunities to do so, he

did not tell anyone that he shot the deceased by accident until his trial. The injuries found on

the deceased’s body were consistent with a deliberate shooting. Thus the verdict of the jury

could not stand. As a result, the Court came to the conclusion that no reasonable group of

men could have reached the same determination as the jury based on the evidence.

5.After considering the facts of the case, the Court determined that not only had the

accused/appellant developed self-control, but he was also considering his family’s future.

After his wife confessed her infidelity to him, he had plenty of time to calm down. His

actions were plainly calculated and purposeful. The case did not fall under the defence of,

grave and sudden provocation and that it was premeditated murder.

6.The Supreme Court held that the pardoning power of the Governor and the Special leave

petition cannot operate together. If a Special leave petition is filed, then the power of the

Governor will cease to exist.