Bot at 13:40, 22 December 2022

2022-12-22T13:40:08Z

New page

{{short description|1959 Indian court case}}
{{italic title}}
{{Use Indian English|date=August 2022}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=March 2022}}
{{Infobox court case
|name = K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
|court = [[Supreme Court of India]]
|image =
|imagesize =
|imagelink =
|imagealt =
|caption =
|full name = K. M. Nanavati v. State of [[Maharashtra]]
|date decided = 
|citations =
|ECLI =
|transcripts =
|judges = K. Subbarao, S. K. Das, Raghubar Dayal
|number of judges = 3
|decision by =
|concurring =
|dissenting =
|concur/dissent =
|prior actions = Jury's Judgment for defendant, Jury Trial-Charge-Misdirection-Reference by Judge, High Court Conviction under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code
|appealed from =
|appealed to =
|subsequent actions = Appeal dismissed
|related actions =
|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.
|keywords = 
|italic title =
}}

'''''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 [[Sexual partner|lover]]. Commander Nanavati, accused under section 302, was initially declared not guilty by a [[jury trial|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.<ref>[https://www.academia.edu/36560172/After_Nanavati_The_Last_Jury_Trial_in_India After Nanavati: The Last Jury Trial in India?]</ref> Nanavati was finally pardoned by [[Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit|Vijayalakshmi Pandit]], newly appointed Governor of Maharashtra and sister of Prime Minister [[Jawaharlal Nehru]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-km-nanavati-case-how-an-affair-turned-friends-into-foes-255957.html|title=Before You Watch Akshay Kumar's Rustom, Here's Everything You Need To Know About The Real Case|date=5 June 2016|access-date=2016-08-18}}</ref>

The incident received unprecedented media coverage and inspired several books and films such as the 1973 film ''[[Achanak (1973 film)|Achanak]]'', the 2016 film ''[[Rustom (film)|Rustom]]'', and the 2019 [[web series]] ''[[The Verdict - State vs Nanavati|The Verdict]]''.

==Background==
[[File:Kawas Nanavati.jpg|thumb|110px|left|[[Commander|Cmdr.]] Nanavati in 1959]]
Kawas Manekshaw "K. M." Nanavati (1925 — 24 July 2003), a [[Parsi]], was a [[commander]] in the [[Indian Navy]] and had settled down in [[Mumbai|Bombay]] with Sylvia (née King), his English-born wife and their two sons and a daughter.<ref name=":0">Inconsistent and Incomplete.[http://inconsistentandincomplete.blogspot.in/2011/12/mumbai-april-27-1959-nanavatis-story.html]{{Cite web|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/proj_tabloid/sylviaprofile.shtml|title=Sylvia Nanavati|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050504162533/http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/specials/proj_tabloid/sylviaprofile.shtml|archive-date=4 May 2005|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}} "[http://inconsistentandincomplete.blogspot.in/2011/12/mumbai-april-27-1959-nanavatis-story.html Nanavati Profile]". "[http://inconsistentandincomplete.blogspot.in/2011/12/mumbai-april-27-1959-nanavatis-story.html Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja]". Mumbai 27 April 1959: Nanavati's Story. Retrieved 19 December 2011
</ref><ref>[http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/OGsgT6hkkniURonylB2uXK/Sylvias-story-beyond-the-scandal.html Sylvia's story beyond the scandal]</ref>

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 [[Sindhis|Sindhi]] friend of Nanavati's.<ref name=":0" /> 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".<ref name=":0" />

== Shooting ==
[[File:Sylvia Nanavati.jpg|thumb|110px|left|Portrait of Sylvia Nanavati]]
On 27 April 1959,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/k-m-nanavati-vs-state-of-maharashtra-37520|title = K. M. Nanavati Vs State of Maharashtra}}</ref> 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 Adlabs|Metro Cinema]], for the film [[Tom Thumb (film)|Tom Thumb]] he had promised to take them to, but excused himself and headed straight to confront Prem Ahuja.<ref name="Blitz's Bombay">{{cite web | author=Prakash, Gyan | title=Blitz's Bombay | work=Seminar | url=http://www.india-seminar.com/2003/528/528%20gyan%20prakash.htm | access-date=17 October 2005 }}</ref><ref name="Sethi, Aarti">{{cite book | author=Sethi, Aarti | year=2005 | chapter-url = http://archive.sarai.net/files/original/d50d1f5e2a0a59a67e9c8787901c66f8.pdf |chapter=The Honourable Murder: The Trial of Cdr Kawas Maneckshaw Nanavati |editor1=Narula, Monica |editor2=Sengupta, Shuddhabrata |editor3=Bagchi, Jeebesh |editor4=Lovink, Geert | title = Sarai Reader 2005: Bare Acts | pages=444–453 | publisher= [[The Sarai Programme at CSDS]] | isbn=81-901429-5-X}}. '''''NB''': on-line chapter is in [[PDF]] format''</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name="Sethi, Aarti"/>

== 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:<blockquote>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.</blockquote>Exception 4 states:<blockquote>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.</blockquote><blockquote>Explanation – It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.</blockquote>In the latter scenario (i.e. premeditated murder), Nanavati would be charged with murder, with the sentence being [[Capital punishment in India|death]] or [[life imprisonment]]. Nanavati pleaded not guilty and his defence team argued it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,<ref name="chnm">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.  </ref> while the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder.<ref>Sharma, Vijaya. "Defence Vs Prosecution (pg.1)". ''The Nanavati Case''. Retrieved 17 October 2005.{{Dead link|date = October 2010|bot = H3llBot}}</ref>

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]]<ref name="judgement">{{cite web | title=K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra | url=http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=4062| access-date=17 October 2005 }}</ref> for a retrial.

The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points:
# The [[Legal burden of proof|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 jury was not instructed that Nanavati's defense had to be proved, to the extent that there ''[[Legal burden of proof|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. It was claimed that jury had been influenced by media and was open to being misled. Jury trials have been abolished in India {{when|date=December 2022}} except for Parsis who still have Jury Trials for their Matrimonial Disputes.

== Retrial ==
[[File:Mumbai 03-2016 40 Bombay High Court.jpg|thumb|right|350px|After Nanavati's acquittal by the jury was dismissed, his retrial was held in the [[Bombay High Court]].]]

=== Defence version ===
{{Unreferenced section|date= August 2022}}
In the [[Bombay High Court]], the defence put forth their version of the incident, for which there were no [[witness]]es other than the two men, and no [[evidence]]. Hearing Sylvia's [[confession (law)|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.<ref name="judgement"/> 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.<ref name="Sethi, Aarti"/>

== 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 (newspaper)|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 (lifestyle)|playboy image]], that symbolised the [[Political corruption|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.<ref name=":1">Sharma, Vijaya. "Heady days of the trial". ''The Nanavati Case''. Retrieved 17 October 2005.{{Dead link|bot = H3llBot|date = October 2022}}</ref> Peddlers on the street sold ''Ahuja Towels'' and toy ''Nanavati Revolvers.''<ref name="Sethi, Aarti"/>

Influential Parsis held regular rallies in Bombay, with [[Karl Jamshed Khandalavala]] represented Nanavati.<ref>{{cite news|last=Sethi|first=Atul|title=Our chamber of|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/special-report/Our-chamber-of/articleshow/7485348.cms?referral=PM|access-date=30 May 2014|newspaper=The Times Of India|date=13 Feb 2022}}</ref>

== 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 [[Krishna Menon|V. K. Krishna Menon]], while the latter was high commissioner to the United Kingdom, and had grown close to the Nehrus during that time.{{Citation needed|date= August 2022}} 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.{{Citation needed|date= August 2022}}

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.{{Citation needed|date= August 2022}} 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|date= August 2022}}

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.<ref name="Sethi, Aarti"/> At around this time, the government received an application for a pardon from [[Bhai Pratap Dialdas|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.<ref name="Sethi, Aarti"/>

After his release, Nanavati, his wife Sylvia and their three children emigrated to [[Canada]] and settled in [[Burlington, Ontario]].<ref name="thesouthasian.org">{{cite web|title=Honor Killing: No 'crime of passion' |url=http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/000178.html |access-date=17 October 2005 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051022191614/http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/000178.html |archive-date=22 October 2005 |url-status=dead |df=dmy }}</ref> 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 in film|1963]] suspense [[Thriller (genre)|thriller]] starring [[Sunil Dutt]], [[Leela Naidu]] and [[Rehman (actor)|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.<ref name="imdb yeh raaste">{{cite web | title=Yeh Raaste Hain Pyaar Ke (1963) | url=http://imdb.com/title/tt0057699/ | access-date=17 October 2005 }}</ref> [[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 (1973 film)|Achanak]]'', a [[1973 in film|1973]] crime [[Drama film|drama]], written and directed by [[Gulzar (lyricist)|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.<ref name="imdb achanak">{{cite web | title=Achanak (1973) | url=http://imdb.com/title/tt0215466/ | access-date=17 October 2005 }}</ref>
* Besides a [[Hindi]] book titled ''Nanavati ka Mukadama'' (Nanavati's trial), [[Anglo-Indian]] novelist [[Indra Sinha|Indra Sinha's]] ''The Death of Mr. Love'' is a [[fiction]]al 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.<ref>{{cite news | title=The Death of Mr Love | url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/03/1041196779725.html | access-date=17 October 2005 | work=The Sydney Morning Herald | date=4 January 2022}}</ref>
* A fictionalized account of the case also appears in [[Salman Rushdie|Salman Rushdie's]] ''[[Midnight's Children]]'', where the case of Commander Sabarmati (in the chapter titled "Commander Sabarmati's Baton") is a fictionalized account of the Nanavati case.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/digging-upnanavati-case/122474/|title=Digging Up The Nanavati Case|newspaper=Business Standard India|date=3 December 2002|last1=Roy|first1=Nilanjana S.}}</ref>
* The 2016 [[Bollywood]] film ''[[Rustom (film)|Rustom]]'', starring [[Akshay Kumar]], is a fictionalized account of the KM Nanavati case.<ref>[http://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/rustom-poster-akshay-kumar-is-playing-honourable-murderer-nanavati/story-zxl8tYXFXVqMoPe6o2HqdI.html Rustom poster: Akshay Kumar playing ‘honourable murderer’ Nanavati?]</ref>
* The [[Pooja Bhatt]] film ''[[Love Affair (2016 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.bombaytimes.com/movies/india/Pooja-Bhatt-will-start-her-Love-Affair-soon/articleshow/52635140.cms|title = Pooja Bhatt will start her 'Love Affair' soon}}</ref>
* A [[Marathi theatre|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.
*The 2019 Hindi [[web series]] ''[[The Verdict - State vs Nanavati]]'' by [[ALTBalaji]] is based on this case.

== Notes and references ==
<references />
* [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5165344/ Rustom Movie] Based on K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra Release date: 12 August 2016 (India)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Km Nanavati(Rustom Pavri) V State Of Maharashtra}}
[[Category:Trials in India]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of India cases]]
[[Category:1959 in case law]]
[[Category:1959 in India]]
[[Category:Bombay High Court]]
[[Category:High Courts of India cases]]
[[Category:Naval history of India]]

K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra - Revision history

Bot at 13:40, 22 December 2022