K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567

Introduction

It is a landmark case on the concept of Exception 1 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) which talks about grave and sudden provocation and also on jury trials in India.

Facts

• The accused, Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, at the time of the alleged murder, was second in command of the Indian Naval Ship "Mysore".
• He had a wife named Sylvia and three children.
• On April 27, 1959, Sylvia confessed to Nanavati of her illicit intimacy with a businessman and family friend Prem Ahuja.
• After knowing the truth of their illicit relationship, the accused shot Prem Ahuja dead with his semi-automatic revolver thereafter, the accused surrendered himself to the police.
• The jury by a majority of 8:1 acquitted the accused and held that he was not guilty of the offence of murder.
• The Sessions Judge did not adhere to the verdict of the jury and referred the case to the hon’ble Bombay High Court under Section 307 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.).
• The High Court observed that it was a well thought premediated murder and not an accidental death.
• K.M. Nanavati preferred an appeal by Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against his conviction.
• The verdict was delivered by Hon’ble Justice K Subbarao.

Issues Involved

• Whether the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 307 of the Cr.P.C. to examine the facts to determine the competency of the Sessions Judge’s referral?
• 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 Cr.P.C.?
• Whether there was any misdirection in the charge?
• 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?
• Whether the act was done in “the heat of the moment” or whether it was a premeditated murder?
• Whether the pardoning power of the Governor and the Special Leave Petition can be clubbed together?

Observations

• The Supreme Court held that the death was not accidental and rather it was a pre-planned murder.
• The mere fact that before shooting, the accused abused the deceased and the abuse provoked an equally abusive reply could not conceivably be a provocation for the murder.

Conclusion

Hence, the case did not fall within Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC and the conviction of accused by the High Court was upheld.

Note

Before the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 came into force the old criminal laws were in force in India. In old Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 there was a concept of “jury trial” in India as well.

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

In the aftermath of this case K.M. Nanavati received Governor’s pardon in 1964.