LexK. M. NANAVATI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(I) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS 567 to draw an analogy between the requirements or the senior research staff and the junior staff with wl:wse chims the tribunal was dealing. TherPfore, we are not satisfied that there is any substance in the grievance made by the workmen against the a.ward passed by the tribunal in respect of house allowance. The result is Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1960 fails and is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs in both the appeals. Appeal No. 459 allowed. Appeal No. 460 dismissed. K. M. NANAVATI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (S. K. DAS, K. SmrnA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) . Jury 'l'rial-Oharge-Misdirection-Reference by Judge, if and when competent-Plea of General Exception-Burden of proof-"Grave anrl sudden provocation"-Test-Power of High Oonrt in reference-Gode of Criminal Procednre(Act, 5 of 1898), ss. 307, 410, 417, 418(1), 423(2), 297, 155 (1), 162- Imlian Penal Gode, 18n0 (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 302, 300, Ex- ception 1·-lndian Evidence Act, 1872 (l•o/ 1872), s. 105. Appellant Nanavati, a Naval Officer, was put up on trial under ss. 302 and 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code for the alleged murder of his wife's paramour. The prosecu- tion case in substance was that on the day of occurrence his wife Sylvia confrssed to him of her illicit intimacy with Ahuja and the accused went to his ship, took from its stores a revol- ver and cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the same, went to Abuja's flat, entered his bed room and shot him dead. The defence, inter alia, was that as hi• wife did not tell .him if Ahuja would marry her and take charge of their children, he decided to go and settle the matter with him. He drove his wife and children to a cinema where he dropped thrm promising to pick them up when the show ended at 6 P. M., drove to the ship and took the revolver and the cartridges on 11 fat.e pretext intending to shoot himself. Thc;n he drove 1~61 Thi man•z1rn1111 •f Tockl•i ExJletirnenJai Station rtf111sent1d b.J the Indian Tea Assoeitition v. The Workmen 6aj1ntragadkor J. 1~1 November 24. 1161 Ji:. M. /fanm-ati v. 1'ht .St(lta of Mahrtraslitro 568 SUPREME COURT HEPOR'.l'S [l!J62] SUPP. - his car to Abuja's office and not finding him ther., drove to his flat. After an altercation a struggle ensued betw<en the two and in course of that struggle two shots went off acci· dentally and hit Ahuja. Evidence, oral and documentary, was adduced in the case including thr<e letters written by Sylvia to Ahuja. Evidence was also given of an extra-judicial confession made by the accused to pro~curion witness J2 who depoS<d that the accused when leaving the place of occurr· encc told him that he had a quarrel with Ahuja as the latter had 'connections' with his wife and therefore he killed him. This witness also deposed that he told P. W. 13, Duty Officer at the Police Sta1ion, what the accused had told him. This statement was not recorded by P. W. 13 and was denird by him in his cross-examination. In his statement to the investigation officcr it was :ilso not recorded. The jury return• ed a verdict of 'not guilty' on both the charges by a majority of 8 : 1. The Sessions Judge disagreed with that verdict, as in his view, no reasonable body of men could bring that ,·errlict on the evidence and referred the matter to the High Court under s. 307 of th~ Code of Criminal Procedure. The t"o Judgrs of the Dil'ision Bench who heard the matter agreed in holding that the appellant was guilty under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. One of them held that there were misdirrrtions in the Sessions Judge's charge to the jury and on a revie\\' of the C\·idcnce came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of murder and the verdict of the jury was pen·erse. The other Judge based his conclusion on the ground that no reasonable body of persons could come to the conclusion that jury had arrived at. On appeal to this Court by special lea\'e it was contended on behalf of the appellant that under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it was in· cumbcnt on the High Court to decide the competency of the reference on a prr11sal of the order of reference itself since it had no jurisdiction to go into the evidence for that purpose, that the High Court was not empowered bys. 307(3) of the Code to set aside the ,·erdict of the jurr on the ground that there were misdi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.