KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra was a 1959 Indian court case involving Kawas
Manekshaw Nanavati, who was tried for shooting dead Prem Ahuja, his wife Sylvia's
paramour. The incident shocked the nation, got unprecedented media coverage and inspired
several books and movies. The case was not only the last jury trial held in India, but also a
direct cause for the abolition of jury trials.

Background
Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati (1925–2003), a Parsi and a commander with the Indian Navy,
had settled down in Mumbai with Sylvia (1931–), his English born wife and their two sons
and a daughter.[2][3]

With Nanavati frequently away on assignments for long periods of time, the lonely Sylvia fell
in love with Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja, a friend of Nanavati.[2][4] Prem's sister Mamie Ahuja,
in her testimony in court, stated that Prem had agreed to marry Sylvia, provided she divorced
her husband. But 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 dated May 24, 1958, she wrote
"Last night when you spoke of your marrying 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…".[2]

Shooting
On April 27, 1959, Nanavati returned home from one of his assignments and finding Sylvia
aloof and distant, he questioned her. Sylvia, who now doubted Prem's intent to marry her,
confessed about the affair to her husband. Nanavati dropped his family at the Metro Cinema,
for a show he had promised to take them to, but excused himself and headed straight to
confront Prem Ahuja.[5][6] When Sylvia was asked in court, why she went to the theatre,
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."[2] Nanavati went to the Naval base
collected his pistol on a false pretext from the stores along with six cartridges,completed his
official duties and proceeded to Prem Ahuja's office.On not finding him there went straight to
his flat. At Ahuja's residence, Nanavati confronted him and asked him whether he intended to
marry Sylvia and accept their children. After Prem replied in the negative, three shots were
fired and Prem Ahuja dropped dead. Nanavati headed straight to confess to the Provost
Marshal of the Western Naval Command and on his advice, turned himself in to the Deputy
Commissioner of Police.[6]

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 be 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 as case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,[7] while the
prosecution argued it was premeditated murder.[8]

The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty, with an 8–
1 verdict. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ratilal Bhaichand Mehta (the sessions judge) considered the
acquittal as perverse and referred the case to the high court. The prosecution argued that the
jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points. One, the onus of proving
that it was an accident and not premeditated murder was on Nanavati. Two, was Sylvia's
confession the grave provocation for Nanavati, or any specific incident in Ahuja's bedroom or
both. Three, the judge wrongly told the jury that the provocation can also come from a third
person. And four, the jury was not instructed that Nanavati's defence had to be proved, to the
extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person. The court
accepted the arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the case was freshly heard in the
high court. Since the jury had also been influenced by media and public support for Nanavati
and was also open to being misled, the Indian government abolished jury trials after this
case.[8]

Retrial
After Nanavati's acquittal by the Jury was dismissed, his retrial was held in the Bombay High
Court.

Defence version
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 is not to be blamed for this 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.[1] When Nanavati met Prem at the latter's bedroom, Prem had just come out
of the bath dressed only in a towel; an angry Nanavati swore at Prem and proceeded to ask
him if he intends to marry Sylvia and look after his children. Prem replied, "Will I marry
every woman I sleep with?", which further enraged Nanavati. Seeing Prem go for the gun,
enclosed in a brown packet, Nanavati too went for it and in the ensuing scuffle, Prem's hand
caused the gun to go off and instantly kill him.[8]

Prosecution version
On the other hand 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 three 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 that it was
an accident. He then unloaded the gun, went to the Provost Marshall and again went 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.[8]
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
November 24, 1961, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction.[6][8]

Public support
The incident both shocked and riveted the entire country. Such a crime of passion, as it was
termed, was unusual, especially in the upper echelons of the society and that too by a highly
decorated officer. People also found the unfolding relationships intriguing. For instance,
Nanavati had known Ahuja for nearly 15 years and Sylvia stood by her husband after Ahuja's
murder.

The weekly tabloid Blitz, run by R. K. Karanjia, a Parsi himself, publicised the story, ran
exclusive cover stories and openly supported Nanavati, portraying 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 Rs.2/- per copy, up from the normal rate of 25 Paise or 0.25 rupee.[9] Peddlers on the
street sold Ahuja Towels and toy Nanavati Revolvers.[6]

Influential Parsis held regular rallies in Mumbai, with the largest being an event held at
Cowasji Jehangir Hall, to support the Governor's decree that suspended Nanavati's life
sentence and put him under naval custody, until his appeal was heard by the Supreme Court.
At that rally, 3,500 people filled the hall and around 5000 stood outside.[9] Nanavati also
received backing from the Indian Navy and the Parsi Panchayat, while the Sindhi community
backed Mamie Ahuja. Even among the jurists, Ram Jethmalani, a Sindhi, consulted the
prosecution, while Karl Khandavala, a Parsi, represented Nanavati.

Release
While Nanavati spent 3 years in prison, public opinion thought the sentence was too harsh
and the Blitz magazine kept the issue alive and pressured the government to pardon Nanavati.
Nanavati, by virtue of working as a Defence Attaché to V. K. Krishna Menon, while he was a
high commissioner to the United Kingdom, was also close to the Nehru-Gandhi family. But a
public pardon could have got an angry reaction from the Sindhi community.[6]

At the same time, the government received an application for pardon from Bhai Pratap, a
Sindhi trader and a participant in the Indian independence movement, who was convicted for
misusing an import license, but exonerated by a government inquiry. The prosecution
working with Ram Jethmalani, the Defence's counsel, got Prem's sister Mamie Ahuja to
forgive Nanavati and give her assent for his pardon, in writing. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, then
governor of Maharashtra, pardoned Bhai Pratap and Nanavati on the same day.[6]

After his release, Nanavati, his wife Sylvia and their 3 children emigrated to Toronto,
Canada. Nanavati died in 2003.[10]

In popular culture
Yeh Raaste Hain Pyar Ke, a 1963 suspense thriller, directed by R.K. Nayyar with Sunil Dutt,
Leela Naidu, and Rehman, was the first Bollywood film to exploit the case, but flopped at the
box office. The film began with a disclaimer that all people and incidents were fictitious, and
altered the case's outcome.[11]

Achanak, a 1973 crime drama, written and directed by Gulzar, starring Vinod Khanna, Lily
Chakravarty, and Om Shivpuri, echoed 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.[12]

Besides a Hindi book titled Nanavati ka Mukadama (Nanavati's trial), Anglo-Indian novelist
Indra Sinha's The Death of Mr Love is a fictional account based on the murder. The book,
spanning four decades between the 1950s to 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.[13]