Jury's Judgment for defendant, Jury() Trial-Charge-Misdirection-Reference by Judge, High Court Conviction under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code
Subsequent action(s)
Appeal dismissed
Court membership
Judges sitting
K. Subbarao, S. K. Das, Raghubar Dayal
Case opinions
Appellant Commander Nanavati, a Naval Officer, was put up on trial under sec. 290 and 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged murder of his wife's paramour. The High Court dismissed the earlier acquittal by a Jury Trial and convicted the accused to life imprisonment under Sec. 302 of IPC.
Commander K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra was a 1959 Indian court case where Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander, was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's lover. Commander Nanavati, accused under section 302, was initially declared not guilty by a jury, but the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and the case was retried as a bench trial. The case is often erroneously believed to be the last jury trial in India, but there were several trials afterwards that used juries, some well into the 1960s.[1] Nanavati was finally pardoned by Vijayalakshmi Pandit, newly appointed Governor of Maharashtra and sister of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.[2]
The incident received unprecedented media coverage and inspired several books and films such as the 1963 movie Yeh Rastey Hain Pyar Ke, the 1973 film Achanak, the 2016 film Rustom, and the 2019 web seriesThe Verdict.
Kawas Manekshaw "K. M." Nanavati (1925 — 24 July 2003), a Parsi, was a Commander in the Indian Navy who had settled in Bombay with Sylvia (née King), his English-born wife and their two sons and a daughter.[3][4]
With Nanavati frequently being away from home on assignments for long periods of time, Sylvia fell in love with Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja, a close Sindhi friend of Nanavati's.[3] In her testimony in court, Prem's sister Mamie Ahuja, stated that Prem had agreed to marry Sylvia, provided she divorced her husband. However, this was contradicted by the letters written by Sylvia (admitted as Sylvia's testimony), where she expressed her desire to divorce Nanavati and marry Prem, but she doubted whether Prem had the same intentions. In a letter, she wrote "Last night when you spoke of your marrying me and the various other girls you might marry, something inside me snapped and I knew I could not bear the thought of your loving someone else".[3]
Shooting
Portrait of Sylvia Nanavati
On 27 April 1959,[5] Nanavati returned home from one of his assignments and finding Sylvia aloof and distant, he questioned her. Sylvia, who now doubted Prem's intention to marry her, confessed the affair to her husband. Nanavati dropped his family at the Metro Cinema, for the film Tom Thumb he had promised to take them to, but excused himself and headed straight to confront Prem Ahuja.[6][7] When Sylvia was asked in court why she went to the cinema, leaving her agitated husband behind, she answered, "I was upset myself and I did not think clearly then. I was not indifferent to my husband killing himself… It is difficult to explain these things to children, so I took them to the cinema."[3]
Nanavati went to the naval base, collected his pistol on a false pretext from the stores along with six bullets, completed his official duties and proceeded to Ahuja's office. On not finding him there, he went to Ahuja's flat and found him there. There was a verbal confrontation between the two men; according to Nanavati's account related in court, he had asked Ahuja whether the latter intended to marry Sylvia and accept their children. After Ahuja replied in the negative, three shots were fired and Ahuja dropped dead. Nanavati headed straight to confess to the Provost Marshal of the Western Naval Command and, on his advice, turned himself over to the Deputy Commissioner of Police.[7]
Jury trial
The crux of the case was whether Nanavati shot Ahuja in the "heat of the moment" or whether it was a premeditated murder. In the former scenario, Nanavati would have been charged under the Indian penal code for culpable homicide, with a maximum punishment of 10 years. This is because he could have invoked exceptions 1 and 4 of section 300 of IPC (which defines murder). Exception 1 states:
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.
Exception 4 states:
Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation – It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
In the latter scenario (i.e. premeditated murder), Nanavati would be charged with murder, with the sentence being death or life imprisonment. Nanavati pleaded not guilty and his defence team argued it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,[8] while the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder.[9]
The jury in the Greater Bombay Sessions Court had only task: to pronounce a person as 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' under the charges. They could not indict any accused nor could punish the accused. The jury in the Greater Bombaysessions court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty under section 302 under which Nanavati was charged, with an 8–1 verdict. Mr. Ratilal Bhaichand Mehta (the sessions judge) considered the acquittal as perverse, and took a historic decision of overturning the jury's decision. He referred the case to the Bombay High Court[10] for a retrial.
The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points:
The onus of proving that it was an accident and not premeditated murder was on Nanavati.
Was Sylvia's confession grave provocation for Nanavati, or any specific incident in Ahuja's bedroom or both?
The judge wrongly told the jury that the provocation can also come from a third person.
The court accepted the arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the case was freshly heard in the high court. It was claimed that the jury had been influenced by media and was open to being misled.
Legacy on Jury Trials in India
Due to the popularity of this case, as well as the widespread media coverage it gained, there developed a widespread misconception that this was the last jury trial in India, despite there having been several trials that utilized a jury since.[1]Soon after the case, jury trials in criminal law were phased out in favour of bench trials, and this was officially codified in the Code of Criminal Procedure (enacted in 1973).[11] Exceptions are made in some cases, one of them being for Parsis who still have Jury Trials for their Matrimonial Disputes.
Retrial
After Nanavati's acquittal by the jury was dismissed, his retrial was held in the Bombay High Court.
In the Bombay High Court, the defence put forth their version of the incident, for which there were no witnesses other than the two men, and no evidence. Hearing Sylvia's confession, an enraged Nanavati wanted to shoot himself, but was calmed down by Sylvia, who told him that he was not to be blamed and there was no reason that he should shoot himself. Since Sylvia did not tell him whether Prem intended to marry her, Nanavati sought to find it out for himself.[10] When Nanavati met Prem at the latter's bedroom, Prem had just come out of the bath dressed only in a white towel; an angry Nanavati swore at Prem and proceeded to ask him if he intended to marry Sylvia and look after his children. Prem replied, "Will I marry every woman I sleep with?", which further enraged Nanavati. Seeing Nanavati go for the gun, enclosed in a brown packet, Prem too went for it and in the ensuing scuffle, Prem's hand caused the gun to go off and instantly kill him.
Prosecution version
The prosecution's version of the story and their counter-points against the defence's version, was based on replies by witnesses and backed by evidence. The towel that Ahuja was wearing was intact on his body and had neither loosened nor fallen off. In the case of a scuffle, it is highly improbable that the towel would have stayed intact. After Sylvia's confession, a calm and collected Nanavati dropped his family to the theatre, drove to his naval base and according to the Navy log, had acquired a gun and rounds, under a false pretext. This indicated that the provocation was neither grave nor sudden and that Nanavati had the murder planned. Ahuja's servant Anjani testified that four shots were fired in quick succession and the entire incident took under a minute to occur, thus ruling out a scuffle. Nanavati walked out of Ahuja's residence, without explaining to his sister Mamie (who was present in another room of the flat) that it was an accident. He then unloaded the gun, went first to the Provost Marshal and then to the police to confess his crime, thus ruling out that he was dazed. The deputy commissioner of police testified that Nanavati confessed that he had shot dead Ahuja and even corrected the misspelling of his name in the police record.
The High Court agreed with the prosecution's argument that the murder was premeditated and sentenced Nanavati to life imprisonment for culpable homicide amounting to murder. On 24 November 1961, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction.[7]
Public support
The incident both shocked and riveted the entire country. Such a 'crime of passion' was considered unusual. People also found the unfolding relationships intriguing; Nanavati had known Ahuja for nearly 15 years and Sylvia stood by her husband after Ahuja's murder.
The weekly tabloid Blitz, owned by R. K. Karanjia, a Parsi himself, publicised the story, published exclusive cover stories and openly supported Nanavati. They portrayed him as a wronged husband and upright officer, betrayed by a close friend. Blitz painted Nanavati's image, as that of a man representing the ideal middle class values as against Ahuja's playboy image, that symbolised the corruption and sleaze of the bourgeois. A copy of Blitz during the trial sold for 2 rupees per copy, up from the normal rate of 0.25 rupees.[12] Peddlers on the street sold Ahuja Towels and toy Nanavati Revolvers.[7]
All of those advantages may have, in other circumstances, availed Nanavati nothing, for a pardon might have been seen by the press and public at other times as a blatant misuse of power to help the crony of an influential political family. However, public opinion, in the largely conservative country, was decidedly in favour of Nanavati, seen as an upright naval officer with middle class values and a strong sense of honour.[citation needed] Public opinion held the sentence of life in prison was too harsh and supported a proposal, mooted by the Blitz, to grant a pardon to the naval officer. The Blitz magazine played a significant part in raising public opinion in favour of Nanavati and keeping the issue alive for over three years until the pardon was granted.[citation needed]
Nanavati spent 3 years in prison; it was feared that a pardon for him could elicit an angry reaction from the Sindhi community to which the Ahuja family belonged.[7] At around this time, the government received an application for a pardon from Bhai Pratap, a Sindhi trader who had been a participant in the Indian independence movement, and had been convicted for misusing an import license. Given his freedom fighter background, and the relative insignificance of his offense, the government was inclined to pardon Bhai Pratap. Finally, an application seeking pardon for Nanavati was obtained even from Mamie Ahuja, sister of the deceased. She gave her assent for his pardon in writing. Vijayalakshmi Pandit, then Governor of Maharashtra, pardoned Bhai Pratap and Nanavati on the same day.[7]
After his release, Nanavati, his wife Sylvia and their three children emigrated to Canada and settled in Burlington, Ontario.[14] Kawas Nanavati died in Canada on 24 July 2003 of unknown reasons. Sylvia moved from their long-time Burlington home to an assisted living flat in 2019.
In popular culture
Yeh Rastey Hain Pyar Ke, a 1963 suspense thriller starring Sunil Dutt, Leela Naidu and Rehman, was the first Bollywood film which seemed to exploit the case. It flopped at the box office. The film began with a disclaimer that all people and incidents were fictitious, and altered the case's outcome.[15]Leela Naidu's 2010 book with Jerry Pinto indicates that the movie screenplay was written before the Nanavati case. It was a coincidence of the real-life case events with a similar movie storyline that led to similarities while the movie was being made.
Achanak, a 1973 crime drama, written and directed by Gulzar, starring Vinod Khanna, Lily Chakravarty, and Om Shivpuri, was inspired by the case and was a box-office hit. In the film, Vinod Khanna, who plays an upright army officer, receives a death sentence but its execution remains inconclusive.[16]
Besides a Hindi book titled Nanavati ka Mukadama (Nanavati's trial), Anglo-Indian novelist Indra Sinha'sThe Death of Mr. Love is a fictional account based on the murder. The book, spanning four decades between the 1950s and 1990s, tells the story of Mrs. S, the second woman besides Sylvia, with whom Prem had a physical relationship. In the title, Love is the literal translation of Prem, Ahuja's first name.[17]
A fictionalized account of the case also appears in Salman Rushdie'sMidnight's Children, where the case of Commander Sabarmati (in the chapter titled "Commander Sabarmati's Baton") is a fictionalized account of the Nanavati case.[18]
The Pooja Bhatt film Love Affair is also based on this case. It focuses on a lonely foreigner who, stuck in India, falls in love with a man (who isn't her husband) and the consequences of the affair.[20]
A Marathi play titled Aparadh Meech Kela by playwright Madhusudan Kalelkar is also based on this case. Arun Sarnaik played the character of Cdr. Nanawati in it.
↑ Under section 304 of the Indian penal code, Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder can be pleaded, if the homicide is not premeditated and occurs, due to a grave or sudden provocation, or in a sudden confrontation, without taking any undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner, irrespective of who provoked first.
↑ Sharma, Vijaya. "Defence Vs Prosecution (pg.1)". The Nanavati Case. Retrieved 17 October 2005.[dead link]
Rustom Movie Based on K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra Release date: 12 August 2016 (India)
Related Research Articles
The gay panic defense or homosexual advance defence is a strategy of legal defense, which refers to a situation in which a heterosexual individual charged with a violent crime against a homosexual individual claims they lost control and reacted violently because of an unwanted sexual advance that was made upon them. A defendant will use available legal defenses against assault and murder, with the aim of seeking an acquittal, a mitigated sentence, or a conviction of a lesser offense. A defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.
A crime of passion, in popular usage, refers to a violent crime, especially homicide, in which the perpetrator commits the act against someone because of sudden strong impulse such as anger or jealousy rather than as a premeditated crime. A high level of social and legal acceptance of crimes of passion has been historically associated with France from the 19th century to the 1970s, and until recently with Latin America.
In law, provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control. This makes them less morally culpable than if the act was premeditated (pre-planned) and done out of pure malice. It "affects the quality of the actor's state of mind as an indicator of moral blameworthiness."
Malice aforethought is the "premeditation" or "predetermination" required as an element of some crimes in some jurisdictions and a unique element for first-degree or aggravated murder in a few. Insofar as the term is still in use, it has a technical meaning that has changed substantially over time.
R v Latimer, [2001] 1 SCR 3 was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy Latimer. The case had sparked an intense national debate as to the ethics of what was claimed as a mercy killing. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime could not be justified through the defence of necessity, and found that, despite the special circumstances of the case, the lengthy prison sentence given to Latimer was not cruel and unusual and therefore not a breach of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court also ruled that Latimer was not denied rights to jury nullification, as no such rights exist. The prison sentence was thus upheld, although the court specifically noted that the federal government had the power to pardon him.
The Homicide Act 1957 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was enacted as a partial reform of the common law offence of murder in English law by abolishing the doctrine of constructive malice, reforming the partial defence of provocation, and by introducing the partial defences of diminished responsibility and suicide pact. It restricted the use of the death penalty for murder.
In English law, provocation was a mitigatory defence to murder which had taken many guises over generations many of which had been strongly disapproved and modified. In closing decades, in widely upheld form, it amounted to proving a reasonable total loss of control as a response to another's objectively provocative conduct sufficient to convert what would otherwise have been murder into manslaughter. It only applied to murder. It was abolished on 4 October 2010 by section 56(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, but thereby replaced by the superseding—and more precisely worded—loss of control defence.
In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.
Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BC.
Drury v. Her Majesty's Advocate is a Scottish criminal case heard before a full bench of the High Court of Justiciary sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal. Stuart Drury had been convicted of killing his former partner with a hammer on concluding that she had begun a new relationship with another man. The original trial judge directed the jury that a finding of culpable homicide could only be made where the accused had not intended to kill and had not displayed enough wicked recklessness to convict of murder, and that a defence of provocation was only possible if the violence was proportionate to the provocation itself.
Bigby v. Dretke 402 F.3d 551, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard a case appealed from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on the issue of the instructions given to a jury in death penalty sentencing. The decision took into account the recent United States Supreme Court decisions concerning the relevance of mitigating evidence in sentencing, as in Penry v. Lynaugh.
People v. Berry is a voluntary manslaughter case that is widely taught in American law schools for the appellate court's unusual interpretation of heat of passion doctrine. Although the defendant had time to "cool down" between his wife's verbal admission of infidelity and the killing, the California Supreme Court held that the provocation in this case was adequate to reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. The lower court had relied on the traditional definition of "adequate provocation" in its jury instructions. The California Supreme Court reversed Berry's murder conviction, while affirming Berry's conviction for assault using deadly force.
Alavandar murder case is a murder trial which was conducted in the Madras State, India in the early 1950s. The cause of the trial was the murder of a businessman and ex-serviceman named Alavandar whose headless body was found in one of the coaches of the Indo-Ceylon Express. After a trial which became a cause célèbre, Alavandar's ex-lover and her husband were found guilty of the murder and had been sentenced to brief terms of imprisonment.
The trial of Oscar Pistorius for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp and several gun-related charges in the High Court of South Africa in Pretoria opened on 3 March 2014. Pistorius was a leading South African runner who won attention as an athlete with a disability competing at a high level, including at multiple Paralympic Games and the 2012 Summer Olympics. Steenkamp, a model, had been Pistorius's girlfriend for three months. In the early morning of Thursday, 14 February 2013, Steenkamp was shot and killed by Pistorius at his Pretoria home. Pistorius acknowledged that he shot Steenkamp, but he said that he mistook her for an intruder. Pistorius was taken into police custody and was formally charged with murder in a Pretoria court on 15 February 2013. The entire trial was broadcast live via audio, and parts of the trial were also broadcast live via television.
Yeh Rastey Hain Pyar Ke is a 1963 Hindi film starring Sunil Dutt and Leela Naidu in the lead roles. This film was Sunil Dutt's debut production, directed by R.K. Nayyar, with music composed by Ravi. Dutt's favourite writer Aghajani Kashmiri scripted Yeh Rastey.. which is based on the sensational K.M. Nanavati adultery and murder case in Mumbai. The film was said to be a thinly-disguised version of the famous Nanavati case where an upright naval captain, Capt. Nanavati, shot dead the lover of his wife. The film was said to be ahead of its times and too bold, doing only moderately well.
Love Affair is an unreleased Indian Bollywood biographical film directed by Soni Razdan under the T-Series and Fish Eye Network Pvt Ltd banners. The principal photography of the film commenced in January 2016.
Rustom is a 2016 Indian Hindi-language crime thriller film directed by Tinu Suresh Desai and written by Vipul K Rawal. The film is jointly produced by Cape of Good Films, Zee Studios, KriArj Entertainment, Plan C Studios. It stars Akshay Kumar as Rustom Pavri - a naval officer, Ileana D'Cruz, Arjan Bajwa and Esha Gupta in lead roles. The film is loosely based on the K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra court case, and narrates the story of naval officer Rustom, who shares a happy relationship with his wife Cynthia. Soon, he discovers her affair with Vikram, a close friend, and is accused of murdering him.
State v. Shane is a 1992 Ohio Supreme Court voluntary manslaughter case that developed a two-step test for "reasonably sufficient provocation" and held that verbal confessions of adultery could not be "reasonably sufficient" provocation.
The Verdict – State vs Nanavati is an 2019 Indian Hindi drama mystery web series created by Ekta Kapoor and produced by Irada Entertainment for online streaming platform ALT Balaji and ZEE5. It is also available on ZEE5. The series stars Manav Kaul, Elli AvrRam, Sumeet Vyas and Viraf Patel as protagonists.
Rajni Patel was an Indian politician and barrister. He is well known for being a member of the group of top lawyers that defended Naval Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati in the Prem Ahuja Murder case.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
