INTRODUCTION
The judgment in the K. M. Nanavati case was passed on 24th November 1961 but it has managed to stay fresh in the minds of people even today. The facts and circumstances of this case received unprecedented media coverage and inspired a lot of books, serials, and movies over the years[i].
The accused/appellant Nanavati was a naval officer who was put on trial under section 302 of IPC for the alleged murder of his wife’s paramour[ii]. This case is considered to be one of the important landmark judgments not just because of the popularity it gained amongst the masses but because of the important legal points, it raised such as plea of general exception, the burden of proof, grave and sudden provocation test, and power of the high court in deciding the competence of reference made by Sessions Judge.
The K. M. Nanavati case is also widely recognized as being responsible for the end of jury trials.
Facts
- Accused/appellant K. M. Nanavati was second in command of the Indian naval ship “Mysore”. He was married to a woman named Sylvia and had three children with her. Due to the nature of his service, Nanavati and his family had lived in many different places before shifting to Bombay. It was in Bombay that they were first introduced to the deceased Prem Ahuja through common friends.
- Nanavati had to go away from Bombay regularly as part of his service, leaving his wife and children behind. In his absence, a friendship developed between Sylvia and Ahuja which later took the form of an illicit relationship.
- When Nanavati returned from his ship after April 18, 1959, he, on multiple occasions, tried to be affectionate to his wife to which she was not being responsive. On April 27, 1959, once more his advance was met by her unresponsiveness. But this time Nanavati asked his wife if she had been faithful to him. She merely shook her head to indicate that she was not. He guessed that her paramour was Ahuja and decided to settle this matter with him.
- First, Nanavati drove his children and wife to the cinema and promised to pick them up later. He then drove to his ship from where he obtained a revolver and six rounds on a false pretext. He put these inside a brown envelope and from there drove to Ahuja’s office. On not finding him there, Nanavati drove to his flat.
- On reaching Ahuja’s flat, he confirmed his presence from a servant. After receiving the confirmation, he went to Ahuja’s bedroom while also carrying the brown envelope which had the revolver.
- Nanavati closed the bedroom door behind him and asked Ahuja about his intentions concerning his wife and children. When he didn’t receive the honourable and desired answer, he is alleged to have shot Ahuja which resulted in his death. From there Nanavati rushed to the nearest police station to confess about his crime.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.
Hence, this appeal was made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by special leave.
Judgement
The Honourable Supreme Court explained that in case 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.
When the order of reference is found to be competent, the High Court is bound to discharge its duties as specified under subsection (3) of section 307 of CrPC. Under this subsection, the High Court shall consider the entire evidence, give due weight to the opinions of the judge as well as the jury and thereafter acquit or convict the accused. The opposite construction as argued by the learned counsel of the defendant would defeat the purpose of this section.
Eduindex News 