Latest News
Back
Document:
K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1962
Introduction:
This is the landmark case in the history of the Indian judiciary as the case was held in 1959 by the Supreme Court of India where a Naval Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati was accused of the murder of Prem Ahuja (his wife’s lover). This case inspired several books and movies as it also received unprecedented media coverage. Initially, Nanavati was declared not guilty of the charge of murder of Prem Ahuja by the jury, but the judgment was dismissed by the High Court of Bombay and the case was retried by the bench trial. This case was the last case to be judge by the jury or jury trial in India, The government of India has abolished the jury trials as a result seen by this case.
Facts of the case:
The denounced, K.M. Nanavati, at the time of the supposed murder, was commander of the Indian Naval Ship "Mysore". He was hitched to Sylvia in 1949 and they had three kids. The couple were inhabiting different better places since the time of the marriage, having regard to the urgency of services of Nanavati. So at last, they moved to Bombay. The deceased Ahuja in the same city was having business in automobiles and in the year 1956, Agniks, who were normal companions of Nanavati's and Ahujas, acquainted Ahuja and his sister with Nanavati's. Ahuja was about 34 years old and unmarried at the time of his demise.
Nanavati, as a Naval Officer, had a frequent journey from Bombay and going away in his Ship, departing his wife and children in Bombay. Along with, companionship created among Ahuja and Sylvia, which finished in illicit closeness between them. On April 27, 1959, Sylvia admitted to Nanavati of her illegal intimacy with Prem Ahuja. Rankled at the conduct of Mr. Ahuja, Nanavati went to his Ship, took from the stores of the ship a self-loader pistol and six cartridges on a bogus pretext, stacked the same, left to the flat of Mr. Ahuja entered into his bedroom and shot him causes death. From that point, Nanavati surrendered himself to the police. He was arrested and at the appointed time he was continued on the Sessions for confronting a charge under s. 302 of the IPC.
In any case, the defence variant was that the accused Nanavati was needed to draw a pistol and six rounds from the stores of his ship as he planned to drive alone to Ahmednagar around evening time, however, the genuine purpose was to shoot himself. After receiving the pistol and six cartridges, and put it in the brown envelope. At that point he drove his vehicle to Ahuja's office, and not got him there, he headed to Ahuja's home, rang the doorbell, and, when it was opened by a worker, strolled to Ahuja's bedroom, went into the bedroom and shut the entryway behind him. He additionally carried with him the envelope containing the pistol. The deceased was saw inside the bedroom by accused, considered him a gentle person and asked him whether he would marry Sylvia and take care of the kids. The deceased countered, "Am I to marry each lady I lay down with?" The accused got infuriated, put the envelope containing the pistol on a cupboard close by, and took steps to whip the deceased. Mr. Ahuja made an abrupt move to get a handle on at the envelope when the accused whipped out his pistol and instructed him to get back. A battle followed between the two and during that battle, two shots went off and hit Mr. Ahuja bringing about his passing. After the shooting, the denounced returned to his vehicle and drove it to the police headquarters and surrendered himself. The trial court held guilty under Section 304 of IPC and in the claim, the high court converts it into Section.302 of IPC. So the accused made an appeal before the Supreme Court and simultaneously he made an application to the governor under Article161.
Statement of Problem:
In this case, Appellant filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the decision given by High Court along with he applied before the governor for pardoning to his punishment. On this situation, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that both the Petition and the Governor power cannot exercise together.
Issues raised in context with the interpretation of the statute:
- Regardless of whether the Special Leave Petition can be entertained without satisfying the request under Article 142?
- Regardless of whether the Pardoning power of Governor and Special Leave Petition can be moved together?
The SLP was excused by the Supreme Court of India, by the majority, holding that the appealing party's Special Leave Petition couldn't be recorded for hearing except if he surrendered under Art. 142 (according to the judgment of HC). The litigant has made Special Leave Petition and use of acquitting capacity to the governor. The Governor decreased his sentence. The SC held that SLP and exculpating power can't work together both are extraordinary. In the event that SLP is recorded, at that point, the intensity of Governor in such condition will not be admitted.
The further court held that Article 142 and 161 of the Indian Constitution are distinctive in nature. The two Articles are reconcilable and ought to be reconciled. The standard of legal concurrence expressed that it is now and again found that the 2 statutes struggle, as their goal are different and language of each is confined to its own article or subject, so they run equally and never meet. Under Article 142 except if the order of lower court doesn't follow the Supreme Court may not engage the SLP and in Article 145 court has all capacity to make the Law to give equity and justice.
Judgment:
The deceased Mr. Ahuja seduced the spouse of the accused. She had admitted to him of her illegal intimacy with the perished. It was regular that the accused was maddened at the direction for the perished and had, in this manner, adequate intention to get rid of the expired. He intentionally made sure about the gun on a bogus appearance from the boat, headed to the level of Ahuja, went into his bed-room unceremoniously with a stacked gun close by and in around a couple of moments from there on came out with the pistol in his handed. The perished was discovered dead in his washroom with slug wounds on his body. It isn't questioned that the shots that made wounds Ahuja radiated from the gun that was in the hand of the charged. After the shooting, till his preliminary in the Sessions Court, he didn't tell anyone that he shot the expired unintentionally. Surely, he admitted his blame to the chowkidar Puransingh and essentially conceded the equivalent to his associate Samuel. His depiction of the battle in the restroom is profoundly counterfeit and is without all important specifics. The wounds found on the body of the perished are reliable with the purposeful shooting and the fundamental wounds are entirely conflicting with unintentional shooting when the person in question and the attacker were in close grasps. Different conditions brought out in the proof likewise build-up that there couldn't have been any battle or battle between the denounced and the perished.
The court held that the director of the denounced obviously shows that the homicide was a conscious and determined one and current realities of the case don't draw in the arrangements of Exceptions 1 of Sec 300 of Indian Penal Code as the charged additionally neglected to bring the case under General Exception of Indian Penal Code by illustrating proof. In the outcome, the conviction of the accused under area 302 for the Indian Penal Code and condemned him of detainment forever.
Conclusion:
From this case, we can say that the exacting principle has been inferred to the court and just read the plain content of the constitution of India which clearly utilized by the Supreme Court for this case. Just on the failure of literal guideline different principles of interpretation can be utilized. But that as it may, the law is clear thus there is no point of applying some other guideline. The decision of the SC is wonderful as per me in this case. There is no issue that two remedies can't be granted by the system for one reason and the same thing which is laid down here.
Document:
