K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Bombay, 1960

• It was a 1959 Indian Court case where K.M Nanavati, a naval commander, was tried further murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's lover. The incident received unprecedented media coverage and inspired several books and movies.
• Nanavati was initially declared not guilty by the jury, but the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and the Case was retired as a bench trial.
• The Case was the last to be heard as a jury trial in India, as a result the Government abolished jury trials as a result of the Case.
• The accused, Nanavati, at the time of the alleged murder, was second in command of the Indian Naval Ship " Mysore". He married Sylvia in 1949 and had three children.
• Since the time of marriage the couple were living at different places having regard to the exigencies of the service of Nanavati, finally, they shifted to Bombay.
• In the same city, the deceased Ahuja was doing business in automobiles and in the year 1956, Agniks introduced Ahuja and his sister to Nanavati's. Ahuja was unmarried and was about 34 years of age at the time of death.
• Gradually friendship developed between Ahuja and Sylvia, which culminated into an illicit relationship.
• On April 27 1956, Sylvia confessed to Nanavati of her illicit intimacy with Ahuja.
• Enraged at the conduct of Ahuja, Nanavati went to his ship, took from the stores of the ship a semi-automatic revolver and six cartridges on the false pretext, loaded the same, went to the flat of Ahuja, entered his bedroom and shot him dead.
• Thereafter the accused surrendered him to the police. He was put under arrest.

• Whether the SLP can be entertained without fulfilment of the order under Art. 142.
• Whether the pardoning power of the governor and SLP can be moved together.

JURY TRIAL

• As the Case first went to the sessions Court and where the jury trial was going on in this case. In jury trial Nanavati was not held guilty with the verdict of 8:1 under section 304 IPC, 1860. But the sessions judge was not satisfied with the decision as perverse and unreasonable and referred this Case to the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court under sec. 307 of the criminal procedure. 

VERDICT OF HIGH COURT

The high court dismissed the verdict of the jury trial on the basis of the following arguments made by the prosecutor.

1. Sylvia's confession, or any specific incident in Ahuja’s bedroom or both did not amount to grave and sudden provocation.
2. The onus of proving that it was an accident and not premeditated murder was on Nanavati.
3. The jury was not instructed that Nanavati’s defence had to be proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the minds of a reasonable person and the accused was held liable under sec 302 IPC, 1860.

An appeal was made by the accused under the Supreme Court of India.

VERDICT OF THE SUPREME COURT

Supreme Court said that bearing the principles in mind we have to look into the facts of the case i.e.

1. As per the defence case, the accused was thinking of the future of his wife and children, it implies that he had regained his senses.
2. The time lapse between the confession and murder was sufficient to regain his self-control.
3. The mere fact that before the shooting the accused abused the deceased and abuse provoked an equally abusive reply could not conceivably be a provocation for murder.
4. The Supreme Court in the second issue dismissed the SLP stating that he cannot claim it unless he surrenders under Art. 142.
5. The Supreme Court also held that the application made to the governor for pardon and the SLP cannot proceed parallelly. If SLP is filed, the power of the governor in such cases shall be ceased.
6. The Supreme Court held that the facts of the case do not attract the provisions of the Exception-1 to Sec. 300 IPC and the accused is guilty of murder under Sec. 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment on accused passed by the Hon’ble High Court is correct and also held that there are no grounds for interference and the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

In the case of K.M. Nanavati v. The State of Maharashtra, we see that the superiority of law is established. The jury, influenced by the media and public opinion, delivered an unfair but celebrated verdict. It was then referred to the higher courts which later held the accused guilty of the crime that he committed. This proves that the law remains the same for everyone irrespective of one’s status or class, and is superior to all in the land. Due to the corruption and lack of efficiency of the jury system, it was done away with after KM Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra. 

The burden of proof does not remain on the prosecution if the facts are established to utmost clarity and beyond reasonable doubt, an essential to effective adjudication, as opposed to what the jury believed in KM Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra.