Home       Top Rated       Submit Article     Advanced Search     FAQ       Contact Us       Lawyers in India       Law Forum     RSS Feeds     

Register your Copyright Online

We offer copyright registration right from your desktop click here for details.

Latest Articles | Articles 2013 | Articles 2012 | Articles 2011 | Articles 2010 | Articles 2009 | Articles 2008 | Articles 2007 | Articles 2006 | Articles 2000-05

Search On:Laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi
We provide fast, cost effective and Hassle free solution.
Contact us at Ph no: 9650499965 (Divorce Law Firm Delhi)

   E-mail login                   Password
        

Free Email Sign Up

Main Categories
 Banking and Finance laws
 Case Laws
 Civil Laws
 Company Law
 Constitutional Law
 Consumer laws
 Contracts laws
 Criminal law
 Dubai laws
 Environmental Law
 family law
 Human Rights laws
 Immigration laws
 Insurance / Accident Claim
 Intellectual Property
 International Law
 Juvenile Laws
 Law - lawyers & legal Profession
 Legal outsourcing
 Media laws
 Medico legal
 Miscellaneous
 Real estate laws
 Tax Laws
 Torts Law
 Woman Issues
 Workplace Equality & Non-Discrimination
 Yet Another Category

More Options
 Most read articles
 Most rated articles

Subscription
Subscribe now and receive free articles and updates instantly.

Name
Email



Copyright Registration

To Copyright Your Books, Videos, Songs, Scripts etc
Call us at: 9891244487 / or email at: admin@legalserviceindia.com
Top Law Colleges

Law Updates:

# Income-Tax
# Family law
# Company Law
# Constitutional Law
# Partnership firms
# Immigration Law
# Cyber Law
# Lok Adalat, legal Aid & PIL
# Forms
# Trademarks
# Woman issues
# Medico Legal
# Consumer laws
# Criminal laws
# Supreme Court Judgments


Published : October 17, 2012 | Author : Akash Shah
Category : Case Laws | Total Views : 6904 | Rating :

  
Akash Shah
Akash Shah
 

In The Supreme Court Of India
Name of the Case:
K. M. Nanavati V. State Of Maharashtra
Hon'ble Judges:
Ø Subbarao, K.
Ø Das, S.K.
Ø Dayal Raghubar

Decided On: 24.11.1961

Citation:
Ø AIR1962SC605
Ø 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567

Subject:
Ø Indian Penal Code
Law applied :
Code of Criminal Procedure(Act, 5 of 1898), 88. 307, 410, 417, 418 (1), 423(2), 297,155 (1), 162
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), 88. 302, 300, Exception I
Indian Evidence Act,1872 (1 of 1872), 8. 105.

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. The incident received unprecedented media coverage and inspired several books and movies. Nanavati 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. 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

Statement of Problem
In this case when the accuse had applied before the governor for pardoning of his punishment and at the same time he has applied for the appeal in the Supreme Court against the decision of the High Court. To this SC dismissed the petition on the ground that both (governors power and SC petition) cannot go on together.

Objective
The objective of this project is:
By studying this case I want to know the limitation/ scope of Art. 161 & 142

Hypothesis
Both the procedure can work together as both are of different field.

Scope of The Study
The research is a doctrinal research. The researcher here would like to know more about the penal aspect in this context. The researcher has tried to analysis the topic by studying various authors, experts, cases of The Indian Apex Court and High courts, articles, etc. The researcher has strictly followed the boundary and has studied only with reference to Indian authors, experts, cases, etc.

Methodology
The present research study is mainly a doctrinal and analytical. Keeping this in view, the researcher has gone through different books, journals, Web references, E-journal, reports etc.

The relevant material is collected from the secondary sources. Materials and information are collected both legal sources like books.

Brief facts of the case
The accused, Nanavati, at the time of the alleged murder, was second in command of the Indian Naval Ship “Mysore”. He married Sylvia in 1949 and had three children.

Since the time of marriage, the couple were living at different places having regard to the exigencies of service of Nanavati. Finally, they shifted to Bombay.

In the same city the deceased Ahuja was doing business in automobiles and in the year 1956, Agniks, who were common friends of Nanavatis and Ahujas, introduced Ahuja and his sister to Nanavatis. Ahuja was unmarried and was about 34 years of age at the time of his death.

Nanavati, as a Naval Officer, was frequently going away from Bombay in his ship, leaving his wife and children in Bombay.

Gradually, friendship developed between Ahuja and Sylvia, which culminated in illicit intimacy between them.

On April 27, 1959, Sylvia confessed to Nanavati of her illicit intimacy with Ahuja.

Enraged at the conduct of Ahuja, Nanavati went to his ship, took from the stores of the ship a semi-automatic revolver and six cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the same, went to the flat of Ahuja entered his bed-room and shot him dead.

Thereafter, the accused surrendered himself to the police. He was put under arrest and in due course he was committed to the Sessions for facing a charge under s. 302 of the Indian Penal code.

But the defence version was that the accused was away with his ship from April 6, 1959, to April 18, 1959. Immediately after returning to Bombay, he and his wife went to Ahmednagar for about three days. Thereafter, they returned to Bombay and the accused noticed that his wife was behaving strangely and was not responsive or affectionate to him. When questioned, she used to evade the issue.

At noon on April 27, 1959, when they were sitting in the sitting-room for the lunch to be served, the accused put his arm round his wife affectionately, when she seemed to go tense and unresponsive.

After lunch, when he questioned her about her fidelity, she shook her head to indicate that she was unfaithful to him. He guessed that her paramour was Ahuja. As she did not even indicate clearly whether Ahuja would marry her and look after the children, he decided to settle the matter with him. Sylvia pleaded with him not go to Ahuja’s house, as he might shoot him.

Thereafter, he drove his wife, two of his children and a neighbor’s child in his car to a cinema, dropped them there and promised to come and pick them up at 6 P.M. when the show ended. He then drove his car to his ship, as he wanted to get medicine for his sick dog, he represented to the authorities in the ship, that he wanted to draw a revolver and six rounds from the stores of the ship as he was going to drive alone to Ahmednagar by night, though the real purpose was to shoot himself.

On receiving the revolver and six cartridges, and put it inside a brown envelope. Then he drove his car to Ahuja’s office, and not finding him there, he drove to Ahuja’s flat, range the door bell, and, when it was opened by a servant, walked to Ahuja’s bed-room, went into the bed-room and shut the door behind him.

He also carried with him the envelope containing the revolver. The accused saw the deceased inside the bed-room, called him a filthy swine and asked him whether he would marry Sylvia and look after the children. The deceased retorted, “Am I to marry every woman I sleep with?” The accused became enraged, put the envelope containing the revolver on a cabinet nearby, and threatened to thrash the deceased.

The deceased made a sudden move to grasp at the envelope, when the accused whipped out his revolver and told him to get back. A struggle ensued between the two and during that struggle two shots went off accidentally and hit Ahuja resulting in his death. After the shooting the accused went back to his car and drove it to the police station where he surrendered himself.

The trail court convicted under S.304 A of IPC and in appeal the high court convert it into S.302 of IPC.

So the accuse made an appeal before the SC and at the same time he made an application to governor under Art.161.

Issues in context with interpretation of statute
# Whether SLP can be entertained without fulfill the order under Art. 142?
# Whether the pardoning power of governor and SLP can moved together?

Answer to issue 1

The SLP was dismissed by the supreme court, by majority, holding that the appellant’s SLP could not be lisited for hearing unless he surrender under Art. 142 (as per the judgement of HC).

Answer to issue 2
The appellant has made SLP and an application of pardoning power to the governor. The governor reduced his sentence. The SC held that SLP and pardoning power cannot operate together both are different. If SLP is filed then the power of governor in such condition will be ceased.

Further court held that the Art.142 and 161 are different in nature. The two Articles are reconcilable and should be reconciled. The rule of statutory coexistence stated that it is sometimes found that the 2 statute conflict, as their objective are different and language of each is restricted to its own object or subject, so they run parallel and never meet.

No rule of construction can require that when the words of a statute convey the clear meaning , it shall be necessary to introduce another part of the statute which speak with less perspicuity and of which the word may be capable of such construction as by possibility to diminish the efficacy of the other provision of the Act.

Under Art. 142 unless the order of lower court doesn’t follow SC may not entertain the SLP and in Art. 145 court has all power to make the Law to give justice.

Judgement
The deceased seduced the wife of the accused. She had confessed to him of her illicit intimacy with the deceased. It was natural that the accused was enraged at the conduct of the deceased and had, therefore, sufficient motive to do away with the deceased. He deliberately secured the revolver on a false pretext from the ship, drove to the flat of Ahuja, entered his bed-room unceremoniously with a loaded revolver in hand and in about a few seconds thereafter came out with the revolver in has hand. The deceased was found dead in his bath-room with bullet injuries on his body. It is not disputed that the bullets that caused injuries to Ahuja emanated from the revolver that was in the hand of the accused. After the shooting, till his trial in the Sessions Court, he did not tell anybody that he shot the deceased by accident. Indeed, he confessed his guilt to the chowkidar Puransingh and practically admitted the same to his colleague Samuel. His description of the struggle in the bathroom is highly artificial and is devoid of all necessary particulars. The injuries found on the body of the deceased are consistent with the intentional shooting and the main injuries are wholly inconsistent with accidental shooting when the victim and the assailant were in close grips. The other circumstances brought out in the evidence also establish that there could not have been any fight or struggle between the accused and the deceased.

The court held that the conduct of the accused clearly shows that the murder was a deliberate and calculated one and the facts of the case do not attract the provisions of Exceptions 1 of Sec 300 of IPC as the accused also failed to bring the case under General Exception of IPC by adducing evidence. In the result, the conviction of the accused under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him of imprisonment for life.

Conclusion
From this we can say the literal rule has been applied the court and just read the plain text of the constitution which clearly used by the SC in this case. Only on the failure of literal rule the other rules of interpretation can be used. But the law is very clear and so there is no point of applying any other rule. The decision of the Supreme Court is perfect according to me in this Case. There is no issue that 2 remedy cannot be granted for one cause and same thing is laid down here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
# Sarthi V.P.Interpretation Of Statute Ed.5 P17
# Basu Dd Shoter Constitution P 1084-86,89

Books
# Sarathi V.P. Interpretation of Statutes 5th Ed.

Authors contact info - articles The  author can be reached at: akashshah@legalserviceindia.com




1 2 3 4 5
Rate this article!     Poor
Excellent    

Most viewed articles in Case Laws category
• Scope of Part I of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
• ONGC v Saw Pipes
• Bangalore Water Supply Case
• Vodafone Case
• H.L.A Hart
• Neha Bhasin v/s.Raj Anand Raj & Performer
• A Misinterpretation & Un-Called Construction Of Section 114 Of Evidence Act: Live-In-Relationship
• Case Comment on Priyadarshini Matoo case
• Indra Sawhney & Others Vs.Union of India
• His Holiness Keshvananda Bharti vs State Of Kerala with reference to Agrarian Reforms in India
• Post Decisional Hearing: Development through Judicial Pronouncement and case study of Canara Bank v. V.K.Awasthi, 2005 (6) SCC 231
• A Case Study on R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
• K.M.Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra
• A.K Kraipak v. Union of India
• LML Piaggio Case
• Workmen Of Dimakuchi Tea Estate V. The Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate
Most recent articles in Case Laws category
• Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd
• Acharya Jagdishwaranand Avadhuta and Ors v. Commissioner of Police
• Judgments on Bombay Rent Act
• Basic Principles of Law of Injunctions in India
• Mrinal Kanti Ghosh v UOI
• Constitutional vires of laws relating to Organized Crime: State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Shantilal Shah and Ors
• A benchmark in history of the Indian Constitutional Law
• Indra Sawhney & Others Vs.Union of India
• Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court - Kailas & Ors. v/s State of Maharashtra and Taluka P.S
• K.M.Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra
• Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subash Chandra Agarwal
• Afcons infrastructure and Ors. v. Cherian Verkay Construction and Ors
• Right to privacy under Article 21: A Case study
• A.K Kraipak v. Union of India
• The administrative aspect of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India & ors.
• Indian Medical Association V V.P. Shantha

Article Comments

there are no comments...

Post Your Comments
Name

Email

Your comments

Note : Your email address is only visible to admin, other members / users cannot see it.

You can use following FXCodes


BOLD : [b]
Italic : [i]

[b] Legal Services India [/b] is a [i]nice website[/i].
[url= http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/ ]click here to visit.[/url]

Legal Services India is a nice website.
Click here to visit

 

Note : Currently, user comments are moderated and will be posted only after approval.



Welcome!
Please login or register a new free account.

Random Pick
The law of adultery as it stands in India punishes only man, and assumes that in all cases ‘man is the seducer’ and the women, who is an equal participant is viewed as a victim....

Statistics
» Total Articles
948
» Total Authors
2505
» Total Views
5905967
» Total categories
29

Law Forum


Legal Articles

Lawyers in India - Click on a link below for legal Services

lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Pondicherry
lawyers in Jaipur

lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Jodhpur
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Lucknow

For Mutual consent Divorce in Delhi
Click Here

Ph no: 9650499965
For online Copyright Registration
click here

Ph no: 9891244487
Law Articles

lawyers in Delhi - New Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Surat
lawyers in Nashik

lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Indore
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Agra

lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Nagpur

TOP

India's Most Trusted Online law library
Legal Services India is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) © 2000-2014
 ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3