Case Comment – K. M. Nanavati v.

State of Maharashtra;
AIR 1962 SC 605
Submitted by

Humanyu Kabeer

B.A. LL.B. (hons.) Self Finance

3rd Semester

Roll No 17

of

Faculty of Law

Jamia Millia Islamia.

In

November, 2018

Under the guidance of

Dr. Sadiya

Assistant Professor
Faculty of Law
Jamia Millia Islamia (Central University)
New Delhi- 110025

1
 CERTIFICATE

The project entitled “Case Comment – K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra; AIR 1962
SC 605” submitted to the Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia for Law of Crimes I as part
of Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the guidance of
Assistant Professor Dr. Sadiya from 15th Oct to 15th Nov. The Research work has not been
submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research paper has been duly
acknowledged.

I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

Signature of the Candidate

Date: 15/11/2018

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. CONTENT PAGE NUMBER

1. Introduction 4

2. Facts 4

3. Judicial Outcome 5

4. Analysis 5

5. Factual Analysis 7

6. Conclusion 8

3
 K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra1

INTRODUCTION

FACTS

K. M. Nanavati case is one of the landmark judgements of India. This case involved Kawas
Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander, who was tried for committing the murder of his
wife’s paramour, Mr. Prem Ahuja. Initially, Nanavati was not declared guilty but later the
decision was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and the case was tried under a bench trial.
This case was the last one in the area of Jury Trials in India.
Nanavati was second in command of Indian Naval Ship during the time he committed
murder. Married to a lady named Sylvia and had three children with her. He had to keep
moving from one place to another in his course of employment and which at last was in
Mumbai. Mr. Nanavati and his wife Sylvia met Mr. Ahuja through a common friend. Ahuja
and Sylvia became good friends and gradually their friendship turned into an intimate
relationship.
On April 27, 1959, Sylvia confessed to her husband Nanavati about her and Ahuja’s illicit
intimacy. Unable to bear the betrayal, annoyed Nanavati took from the store of his ship a
semi-automatic revolver and six cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the gun and went to
Ahuja’s flat. The servant at Ahuja’s flat opened the door. Nanavati went to Ahuja’s bedroom
and closed the door from inside and abused Ahuja by calling him a Swine.
Nanavati then questioned Ahuja that whether he would marry Sylvia and look after his
children. To this Ahuja replied saying, “Am I to marry every woman I sleep with?” The
accused Nanavati got enraged from this answer of his and placed the envelope containing the
revolver on a cabinet nearby and threatened to thrash the deceased. The deceased made a
sudden move to grasp the envelope, when Nanavati whipped out his revolver from the
envelope and told Ahuja to back off. A hustle went off between the two and in the course of
the struggle two shots were fired accidentally and hit Ahuja which resulted in his death and
thereafter Nanavati surrendered to the Police.

1
AIR 1962 SC 605.

4
Nanavati was charged under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court
convicted him under Sec. 304A of IPC and later under an appeal the high court revised it into
Sec. 302 of IPC.

The question here in this case is, whether the defence of Grave and Sudden Provocation,
under Sec. 300(1) of Indian Penal Code, provide blanket protection to the accused in the
present factual scenario. The accused surrendered himself after the incidence depicting the
innocent mind of the accused. On the contrary, the facts clearly present a reasonable gap of
time for the accused to cool down.

JUDICIAL OUTCOME

The jury acquitted the accused of both the charges in the ratio 8:1, whereas, the Sessions
Judge disapproved jury’s opinion and passed the matter to Honourable High Court of
Bombay under Sac. 307 of Code of Criminal Procedure after recording the grounds of their
opinion. The said reference was heard by a division bench of the said High Court consisting
of J. Shelat and J. Naik. The two learned Judges gave separate judgments, but agreed in
holding that the accused was guilty of the offence of murder under Sec. 302 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. J. Shelat, having
held that there were misdirections to the jury, reviewed the entire evidence and came to the
conclusion that the accused was clearly guilty of the offence of murder, alternatively, he
expressed the view that the verdict of the jury was perverse, unreasonable and, in any event,
contrary to the weight of evidence. Justice Naik, preferred to base his conclusion on the
alternative ground, that no reasonable body of persons could have come to the conclusion
arrived at by the jury. Both the learned Judges agreed that no case had been made out to
reduce the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The present
appeal has been preferred against the said conviction and sentence.

ANALYSIS
This Comment hereby intends to create a reasonable nexus between the non-applicability of
Sec. 300(1) of IPC and the guilt under Sec. 302 of IPC. The opinion of the Sessions Judge
was affirmed by the Honourable High Court and thereafter by the Honourable Supreme Court
of India and the accused was held guilty for the offence of murder as the court reviewed that

5
the defence of Sudden and Grave Provocation cannot be held as a valid defence in this matter
because of lapse of reasonable time gap between the provocation by the wife of accused and
the causation of murder.

It is contended by the appellant that the accused shot the deceased while deprived of the
power of self-control by sudden and grave provocation and, therefore, the offence would fall
under Exception 1 to s. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The said Exception reads:
"Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control
by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation
or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident"2.
Homicide is the killing of a human being by another. Under this exception, culpable homicide
is not murder if the following conditions are complied with: (1) The deceased must have
given provocation to the accused. (2) The provocation must be grave. (3) The provocation
must be sudden. (4) The offender, by reason of the said provocation, shall have been deprived
of his power of self-control. (5) He should have killed the deceased during the continuance of
the deprivation of the power of self-control. (6) The offender must have caused the death of
the person who gave the provocation or that of any other person by mistake or accident.

The question that the Court has to consider is whether a reasonable person placed in the same
position as the accused was, would have reacted to the confession of adultery by his wife in
the manner in which the accused did. In Mancini v. Director of Public Prosecutions3, it was
held that, the scope of the doctrine of provocation thus:
"It is not all provocation that will reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter. Provocation,
to have that result, must be such as temporarily deprives the person provoked of the power of
self-control as the result of which he commits the unlawful act which causes death. The test
to be applied is that of the effect of the provocation on a reasonable man, as was laid down by
the Court of Criminal Appeal in Rex v. Lesbini, so that an unusually excitable or pugnacious
individual is not entitled to rely on provocation which would not have led an ordinary person
to act as he did. In applying the text, it is of particular importance to; (a) consider whether a
sufficient interval has elapsed since the provocation to allow a reasonable man time to cool,
and; (b) to take into account the instrument with which the homicide was effected, for to

2
Section 300(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3
1941, 3 All ER 272

6
retort, in the heat of passion induced by provocation, by a simple blow, is a very different
thing from making use of a deadly instrument like a concealed dagger. In short, the mode of
resentment must bear a reasonable relationship to the provocation if the offence is to be
reduced to manslaughter."
In the present case, firstly, the provocation was initiated by the wife of the accused and not by
the victim himself. It cannot be denied that the provocation was not grave enough that the
offender would lose his self-control. Secondly, the accused before committing the offence
prepared to commit the offence and after performing several acts in the meanwhile,
committed homicide of the deceased. This is very clear that the provocation was not of a
sudden nature. Therefore, there is no question of the applicability of the defence of Grave and
Sudden Provocation.

FACTUAL ANALYSIS
Initially, the charge sheet was filed for both Sec. 302 and Sec. 304(A) of the Indian Penal
Code. The accused was held guilty for Sec. 302 of IPC because, the accused fired 3 rounds
from his revolver, 2 of them were found in the bathroom and one in the skull of the deceased.
It cannot be reasonably accepted that, 3 bullet shots were fired out of provocation and hustle
as pressing of trigger of a revolver requires 28 pounds of force on the trigger which is not
easy even for a marksman like that of accused. It was also stated by Doctor Jhalla, who
conducted post-mortem of the deceased, that, the bullet which punctured the chest cavity was
fired from at least 18 inches away from the body which would not have been possible during
the hustle between the accused and the deceased. Therefore, this is a clear case of
intentionally causing such bodily injury which is surely to cause death of the deceased. Thus,
the accused was held guilty of Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder.

The Indian law, relevant to the present enquiry, may be stated thus: (1) The test of "grave
and sudden"4 provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society
as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked
as to lose his self-control. (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain
circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within
the first Exception to Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. (3) The mental background created
by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether the

4
Section 300(1), Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7
subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the offence. (4) The
fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation
and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and
scope for premeditation and calculation.
Bearing these principles in mind, let us look at the facts of this case. When Sylvia confessed
to her husband that she had illicit intimacy with Ahuja, the latter was not present. We will
assume that he had momentarily lost his self-control. But if his version is true-for the purpose
of this argument we shall accept that what he has said is true-it shows that he was only
thinking of the future of his wife and children and also of asking for an explanation from
Ahuja for his conduct. This attitude of the accused clearly indicates that he had not only
regained his self-control, but on the other hand, was planning for the future. Then he drove
his wife and children to a cinema, left them there, went to his ship, took a revolver on a false
pretext, loaded it with six rounds, did some official business there, and drove his car to the
office of Ahuja and then to his flat, went straight to the bed-room of Ahuja and shot him
dead. Between 1:30 P.M., when he left his house, and 4:20 P.M., when the murder took
place, three hours had elapsed, and therefore there was sufficient time for him to regain his
self-control, even if he had not regained it earlier. On the other hand, his conduct clearly
shows that the murder was a deliberate and calculated one. Even if any conversation took
place between the accused and the deceased in the manner described by the accused, though
it cannot be believed that it does not affect the question, for the accused entered the bedroom
of the deceased to shoot him. The mere fact that before the shooting the accused abused the
deceased and the abuse provoked an equally abusive reply could not conceivably be a
provocation for the murder. We, therefore, hold that the facts of the case do not attract the
provisions of Exception 1 to Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

CONCLUSION

The author’s opinion on the matter coincide with that of the honourable High Court. The
homicide committed was whole intentional and planned. The accused had full knowledge of
the act and was not under the influence of provocation at all. Firing of 3 bullet shots hitting
chest cavity and skull from a distance of more than 18 inches is no act performed during a fist
hustle between the two. Also, passage of 3 hours between the provocation and the

8
commission of offence was a reasonable time gap to cool down and prepare for the act. The
accused act of dropping his family at the theatre itself is the preparation for the offence.
The challenge to the opinion of the Sessions court, that the High Court should review the
evidence under Section 307 of Code of Criminal Procedure, was also over ruled and the High
Court being a court of record looked into the evidences in this matter as justice is the primary
goal. The jury’s opinion was not at all reasonable and therefore it was necessary for the high
Court to check upon this unreasonable biasness.
As a result, conviction of the accused under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence
of imprisonment for life passed on him by the High Court are correct, and there are
absolutely no grounds for interference.