KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra (1959). Why? Because this single case changed the mechanism (forever) by which justice would be delivered in India. The case was the last to be heard as a jury trial in India, as the government abolished jury trials as a result of the case. THE FACTS The Premise Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander, was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wifes lover. During the long periods when Nanavati stayed away from home for work, his wife, Sylvia Nanavati, fell in love with her husband’s friend, Prem Ahuja. The Build-Up Nanavati, however, was mostly in dark about this affair. All the letter written by his wife to him, during his travel, expressed complete commitment towards him. Meanwhile, as would be revealed by Prem’s sister during the trials, the lovers had planned for marriage after Sylvia getting divorced from Nanavati. Whether this equation between the lovers changed (or was marred with mutual doubts) is still unknown. The Shooting On April 27, 1959, Nanavati, returning home from one of his assignments, confronted Sylvia. She confessed about the affair. 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. 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 Ahujas office. On not finding him there went straight to his flat. At Ahujas residence, Nanavati confronted him and asked him whether he intended to marry Sylvia and accept their children. After Prem replied in the negative, Nanavati killed Prem Ahuja, firing three close-range shots at him. 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. The 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). 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 defense team argued it as case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder. The Jury Verdict (last jury verdict in India) The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty, with an 8–1 verdict. Honble Mr. Justice Ratilal Bhaichand Mehta (the sessions judge) considered the acquittal as perverse and referred the case to the high court. The High Court Intervention and Reversal of Jury Verdict 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 Sylvias confession the grave provocation for Nanavati, or any specific incident in Ahujas 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 Nanavatis defense 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 jurys verdict and the case was freshly heard in the high court Abolition of Jury Trials 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. Retrial The high court agreed with the prosecutions 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. Early Release The case also was marred with regional colors. Among the jurists, Ram Jethmalani, a Sindhi, conducted the prosecution, while Karl Khandavala, a Parsi, represented Nanavati. Prem Ahuja, the deceased, was a Sindhi and Nanavati was a Parsi. But there was unprecedented support for Nanavati among public, not limited to Parsis alone. The media scrutiny brought about Nanavati as a victim of foul play, who even in his worst hours, stood for honour and well being of his family. Nanavati spent 3 years in prison. Prems sister Mamie Ahuja was persuaded to forgive Nanavati. She gave her assent for his pardon in writing. Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, then governor of Maharashtra, pardoned Nanavati. Later Life After his release, Nanavati, his wife Sylvia and their 3 children emigrated to Canada and settled in Toronto. Nanavati died in 2003. Inspiration on Celluloid and Literature Yeh Raaste Hain Pyar Ke, a 1963 suspense thriller, directed by R.K. Nayyar with Sunil Dutt, Leela Naidu, and Rehman. Achanak, a 1973 crime drama, written and directed by Gulzar, starring Vinod Khanna, Lily Chakravarty, and Om Shivpuri. Hindi non-fictional book titled Nanavati ka Mukadama (Nanavatis trial) was published. Indra Sinhas The Death of Mr Love is a fictional account based on the murder. The book, spanning four decades from 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, Ahujas first name. A fictionalized account of the case also appears in Salman Rushdies Midnights Children, where the case of Commander Sabarmati (in the chapter titled Commander Sabarmatis Baton) is a fictionalized account of the Nanavati case.
Posted on: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 10:14:29 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015