Law Maker

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra

Supreme Court of India · 24 November 1961 · 3 judges · 1962 AIR 605; 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567

The Supreme Court upheld the appellant's conviction for murder and life sentence: the jury verdict was vitiated by grave misdirections, and the killing, done after time to cool, did not fall within the grave and sudden provocation exception.

Facts

The appellant, a naval officer, learnt from his wife that she had an illicit relationship with the deceased. He took his wife and children to a cinema, went to his ship, obtained a revolver and cartridges on a false pretext, went to the deceased's flat and shot him dead in his bedroom about three hours after leaving home. He claimed the shots went off accidentally in a struggle. Charged under Sections 302 and 304 Part I IPC and tried with a special jury, he was acquitted by an 8:1 verdict. The Sessions Judge, disagreeing, referred the case to the Bombay High Court under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court held there were misdirections and the verdict was perverse, convicted him of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He appealed by special leave.

Questions before the Court

  1. When is a reference by a Sessions Judge under Section 307 CrPC, 1898 competent, and what are the High Court's powers on such a reference?
  2. Was the charge to the jury vitiated by misdirections, including on the burden of proof under Section 105 of the Evidence Act where the accused pleads accident under Section 80 IPC?
  3. Was the killing done under grave and sudden provocation within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC?

What the Court held

  • A reference under Section 307 is competent when the Sessions Judge disagrees with the verdict and is clearly of opinion that no reasonable body of men could reach it, recording his grounds. The High Court then considers the entire evidence and may set aside the verdict for misdirection or if it is perverse.
  • The prosecution's burden to prove the ingredients of the offence never shifts. But where the accused relies on a General Exception, Section 105 of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against him; evidence short of proving the exception may still raise a reasonable doubt on the ingredients.
  • The charge omitted Section 105 and the ingredients of Section 80 IPC, wrongly treated the case as one of circumstantial evidence, and let in a police statement contrary to Section 162. These grave misdirections vitiated the verdict, which was also one no reasonable body of persons could reach.
  • The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man of the same class of society as the accused, placed in his situation, would be so provoked as to lose self-control. Words and gestures may suffice, and the victim's previous acts may be considered.
  • The fatal blow must be traced to passion arising from the provocation, not after it has cooled. The appellant had time to regain self-control and the killing was deliberate, so Exception 1 did not apply and the conviction under Section 302 was upheld.

Why it matters

The judgment states the Indian test of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, departing from the English rule that words alone cannot suffice and adopting a reasonable man of the accused's own social class. It also explains the burden of proof when the accused pleads a General Exception under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, and sets out the High Court's powers on a jury reference under Section 307 CrPC, 1898.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“The Indian law, relevant to the present enquiry, may be stated thus : (1) The test of "grave and sudden" provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be so provoked as to lose his self-control. (2) In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to s. 300 of the Indian Penal Code.”
Subba Rao, J. (for the Court)Page 74 of the judgment
“In India, as it is in England, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused as a general rule, and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilty of the accused; to put it in other words, the accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by the prosecution. But when an accused relies upon the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or on any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the Penal Code, or in any law defining an offence, s. 105 of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and also throws a burden on him to rebut the said presumption.”
Subba Rao, J. (for the Court)Page 21 of the judgment
“Between 1-30 P.M., when he left his house, and 4-20 P.M., when the murder took place, three hours had elapsed, and therefore there was sufficient time for him to regain his self-control, even if he had not regained it earlier. On the other hand, his conduct clearly shows that the murder was a deliberate and calculated one.”
Subba Rao, J. (for the Court)Page 75 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Case and bench

Parties
K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra
Case
Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1960
Decided
24 November 1961
Bench
K. Subba Rao, S.K. Das, Raghubar Dayal
Opinions
Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao, J.

Questions on this case

4 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:

  1. Question 1 · Landmark Judgments Practice Set 1

    According to K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961), the test of 'grave and sudden' provocation is whether:

    1. A. the provocation was given by acts of the deceased, since words or gestures can never be enough
    2. B. any person of ordinary prudence, whatever his class of society, would have killed the provoker
    3. C. the accused himself, given his own temperament and sensitivity, actually lost his power of self-control at the time
    4. D. a reasonable man of the same class of society as the accused, placed in his situation, would lose self-control
    Show the answer

    D. a reasonable man of the same class of society as the accused, placed in his situation, would lose self-control

    Nanavati stated that the test is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of society as the accused and placed in his situation, would be so provoked as to lose his self-control, and that words and gestures may also, in some circumstances, amount to such provocation. The rule governs Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, now Exception 1 to Section 101 BNS.