K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
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. This was not the last jury trial in India, as is popularly believed. Nanavati was finally pardoned by Vijayalakshmi Pandit, newly appointed Governor of Maharashtra and sister  of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. The incident received unprecedented media coverage and inspired several books and films such as the 1973 film "Achanak", the 2016 film "Rustom", and the 2019 web series "The Verdict". Background. Kawas Manekshaw "K. M." Nanavati (1925 — 24 July 2003), a Parsi, was a commander in the Indian Navy and had settled down in Bombay with Sylvia (née King), his English-born wife and their two sons and a daughter. With Nanavati frequently being away from home on assignments and affairs for long periods of time, Sylvia fell in love with Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja, a close  Sindhi friend of Nanavati's. 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". Shooting. On 27 April 1959, 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 about 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. 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. 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. 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, while the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder. 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 Bombay sessions 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 for a retrial. The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points: The court accepted the arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the case was freshly heard in the high court. It was  claimed that jury had been influenced by media and was open to being misled. The Government of India abolished jury trials soon after in most cases except for Parsis who still have Jury Trials for their Matrimonial Disputes. Retrial. 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 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. 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. 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. Peddlers on the street sold "Ahuja Towels" and toy "Nanavati Revolvers." Influential Parsis held regular rallies in Bombay, with Karl Jamshed Khandalavala represented Nanavati. Release. Nanavati had moved in the same social circles as the Nehru-Gandhi family for many years. He had previously worked as Defence Attaché to V. K. Krishna Menon, while the latter was high commissioner to the United Kingdom, and had grown close to the Nehrus during that time. During the time of Nanavati's trial and sentencing, Jawaharlal Nehru  was Prime Minister of India and his sister, Vijayalakshmi Pandit, was governor of Bombay state. All of these advantages may in other circumstances have 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. 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. 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. 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. After his release, Nanavati, his wife Sylvia and their three children emigrated to Canada and settled in Burlington, Ontario. 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.