\n<\/p>\n
DECIDED ON-\u00a024th<\/sup>\u00a0November, 1961<\/p>\n BENCH-\u00a0K. Subbarao, SK Das, Raghubar Dayal<\/p>\n INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n A landmark case in the criminal history of India, K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra has been a case discussed like ever since now. This judgment made its place as soon as it was pronounced.<\/p>\n This landmark judgement of India received unprecedented media attention as it involved Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander who was tried for committing the murder of his wife\u2019s lover, Mr. Prem Ahuja. Initially, Nanavati was declared not guilty, but later the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and the case was tried under a bench trial.<\/p>\n This case was the last case to be heard as a jury trial in India because as the result of this case, the government abolished the jury trials in India.<\/p>\n BACKGROUND OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n Case of the prosecutor<\/strong><\/p>\n \u25cf The accused after knowing about the illicit intimacy of the deceased with his wife dropped his wife and children in a cinema.<\/p>\n \u25cf He went to his ship took from the ship a revolver on a false pretext.<\/p>\n \u25cf He then went to the flat of Ahuja entered his bedroom and shot him dead.<\/p>\n \u25cf Thereafter, he surrendered himself to the police.<\/p>\n Case of the Defence<\/strong><\/p>\n \u25cf Sylvia, when questioned by the accused about her fidelity, confessed of her being unfaithful to him.<\/p>\n \u25cf There was no surety that Ahuja would marry her. The accused then decided to settle the matter with him.<\/p>\n \u25cf He dropped his wife and children to a cinema and took a shot gun from his ship on a false pretext.<\/p>\n \u25cf Not finding Ahuja in his office, the accused went to his house carrying the envelope containing the revolver.<\/p>\n \u25cf The accused on seeing the deceased, abused him and asked whether he would marry Sylvia and look after the children.<\/p>\n \u25cf The deceased retorted, \u201cAm I to marry every woman I sleep with?\u201d<\/p>\n \u25cf The accused became enraged, threatened to thrash the deceased.<\/p>\n \u25cf During the struggle two shots went off accidentally and hit Ahuja.<\/p>\n \u25cf After the shooting, the accused surrendered himself.<\/p>\n ISSUES<\/strong><\/p>\n \u25cf Whether Nanavati shot Ahuja in \u201cthe heat of the moment\u201d or whether it was a premeditated murder?<\/p>\n \u25cf In the former scenario, Nanavati would be charged under Section 304, Part I, IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder invoking Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC.<\/p>\n \u25cf In the latter scenario, Nanavati would be charged under Section 300 (murder), with the sentence being death or life imprisonment.\u00a0<\/p>\n The test of grave and sudden provocation is:<\/strong><\/p>\n \u25cf Whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same class of the society as the accused, placed in the same situation would be so provoked as to lose his self-control.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u25cf For instance, in India words, gestures and mental background created by the previous act of the victim may also be considered.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u25cf The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the provocation, influence of passion arising from and not after passion has cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving scope for premeditation and calculation.<\/p>\n Distinguish between Culpable Homicide and Murder<\/p>\n The definition of murder under Section 300 mentions the cases of culpable homicide that can be called as murder. Those cases are:-<\/p>\n Here action also includes intentional omission. Where a child was very ill and his family members refused to take him to the hospital for providing necessary treatment, as a result the child dies. Such a case shall be called as murder.<\/p>\n Here the offender has the intention to cause bodily harm and knowledge that by his act death will be caused. This clause may include those cases where the victim was suffering from a trauma or disease that the offender knew about and used it as an advantage by inflicting bodily injury which resulted in death of that person, what may not have caused death of a normal person.<\/p>\n For this clause the offender must have intention and would\u2019ve caused a bodily injury that is sufficient enough to cause death to any other person in ordinary course of nature.<\/p>\n Where the offender doing the act knows the gravity of his actions that it will, in all probability, will cause death of the person or the bodily injury that is inflicted is likely to cause death, and still commits such act without any prominent excuse for causing death or such injury. This is applicable on cases of dangerous action without any intention to cause specific injury. For e.g., rash driving.<\/p>\n The four cases mentioned above are the culpable homicides that are considered as murder. All the other remaining cases continue to be culpable homicides. All culpable homicides are murder but not all murders are culpable homicides.<\/p>\n Though the definition of murder is subject to some exceptions that are in the following circumstances the death cannot be called as murder.<\/p>\n This happens when a person is forced to kill another human being. The act should be done according to the will of the some other person. Also it is important that there should not be sufficient time between the prosecutions. These exceptions are also used as partial defence if all the following conditions are fulfilled:-<\/p>\n a. There should be provocation<\/p>\n b. Grave and sudden provocation,<\/p>\n c. Due to such prosecution the person has no self-control.<\/p>\n d. The death of a person has been caused by mistake or accident.<\/p>\n Where a person kills another while protecting their own life or property it shall not be considered as murder. Provided the person who got killed must be doing an act which was out of his rights given by the law and infringing the rights of the accused. There is no intention to cause death in cases of private defence. If intention is present does not remain an exception anymore and the accused will be punished.<\/p>\n If the offender is a public servant who only acted for public justice, but exceeded the power given to him by law and then caused death of a human, in good faith. Also if he believes what he did was lawful and necessary for him to do under his duty as public servant. This act by the public servant should be without any ill- intention. In a case a police constable fired at reapers under the orders of a superintendent of police, it was found there was no necessity for public security to disperse those reapers by firing upon them. They were charged for murder.<\/p>\n For this exception, the death should be caused in a sudden fight without any premeditation due to the heat of a sudden quarrel. Keeping in mind the accused should not have crossed any line. It does not matter who started the fight, it just have to be with the person who got killed.\u00a0Here the fight is between two or more persons, with or without weapons.<\/p>\n According to Section 302 of IPC the punishment for murder is death penalty or imprisonment for life and also liable to pay fine. Though in very rare cases the court the court resorts to providing death penalty for murder. Life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an exception in the offence of murder. Before giving death penalty a proper explained reason should also be given as to why such type of penalty is being given. This is mentioned under Section 354 (b) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Each and every aspect is considered before giving such a penalty. The Death penalty should only be provided in rarest of rare case. If it is seen that the offender is grieved by his acts and is willing to atone his sins then the court has power to substitute his sentence for death penalty to imprisonment for life.<\/p>\n But if the sentence of death penalty is taking time in execution the punishment cannot be changed into life imprisonment. In cases where the trial courts and the High Courts are not in consensus in the decision as to what punishment should be given, in such instances imprisonment of life is provided.<\/p>\n The punishment should also be given after considering all the evidences, circumstantial evidences, witness statements, placement of injuries etc. in a case the husband had doubts on his wife that she might be cheating on him. One day while she was working in the fields with her 12 years old daughters he told both of them to follow him to the river to wash clothes. Later after this, both mother and daughter were found dead. The husband was convicted for murder.<\/p>\n A person who is a life convict i.e., he is going through a sentence of life imprisonment, if he gets convicted for the attempt to murder where hurt is caused to some other person then he may be punished with death.<\/p>\n This is the second part of Section 307, which provides death penalty to all the life convicts that are found attempting the offence under this section due to which hurt was caused to people. It should be noticed how the language of the section use the word \u2018may be punished\u2019. Hence it is on the discretion of the court that it may prescribe death penalty to a life convict. Or if he is satisfied then it also has the power to reduce the death penalty to whatever is justified.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n In a case, the Supreme court had said where a person is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment of life for murder, and is released as by remission then that person is no longer\u00a0 under the sentence of life imprisonment. The murder committed during the remission period will not be taken into consideration while giving punishment under this section. Hence the accused shall not be given life imprisonment.<\/p>\n The legality of this Section was questioned in front of a Bench of Four Judges of the Supreme Court. It was said that this Section violates the Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. This section discourages the assaults by the life convicts on the prison mates or staff members. The concern of the legislature was one thing, but the language they chose exceeded what it actually intended to say. According to the language the section aid that the life convicts are dangerous breed of humanity, though this assumption is not supported by any scientific data. \u00a0Overall in majority it was seen that this sections violates the Article 21 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n Once a punishment is given by the judge it goes out of his hand. It becomes irreversible and irrevocable. Hence before giving such death penalty it should be considered judicially with a fair mind. After some discussion the court declared Section 303 unconstitutional and punishments for murder by life convicts now will be given under Section 302 IPC i.e., a choice between death penalty and life imprisonment.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The Section 307 gives the definition and punishment for attempt of murder. It states the following:-<\/p>\n 1. Attempt to murder is an act done with intention and knowledge,<\/p>\n 2. Done in such circumstances that if death is caused due to it, it will be called as murder,<\/p>\n 3. The person committing such an attempt will be punished with imprisonment, whether simple or rigorous extended up to 10 years and also liable to pay fine,<\/p>\n 4. If only hurt is caused to a person, the accused shall be punished with either imprisonment for life or the same punishment as mentioned above.<\/p>\n Murder is culpable homicide, but each and every culpable homicide is not murder. (a) Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender of the act causes death of a person under grave provocation, (b) It is not murder if the offender causes death of a person in the exercise of the right of private defence of person or property, (c) It is not murder if the offender, being a public servant causes death of a person for the advancement of public justice, (d) It is not murder if the offender causes death of a person in a sudden fight without premeditation, and (e) It is not murder when the offender causes death of a sickly person above the age of 18 years who takes the risk of death and has consented to be killed.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n This Section contains the \u2018almost\u2019 cases. All the cases which could not get completely executed and fell short for some reason they punished under this Section. The most important ingredients of this section are that, the offender must have intention to kill and should know that if they succeeded it shall be considered as murder. Unless their act was not capable enough to cause death of any person, it shall not be considered as an attempt to murder.<\/p>\n INTERNATIONAL LAW RELATED TO MUDER<\/strong><\/p>\n The term is part of the criminal code of Canada (Section 222), where all killings of persons are classified as culpable or not culpable homicide. In Canada, there are three types of culpable homicide- Murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Murder is a sub-category of\u00a0Culpable Homicide\u00a0which is defined as causing the death of a human being, by means of an unlawful act; by criminal negligence; by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person. Killings classified as not culpable are justifiable killings;<\/p>\n Thus, the term is used to define the criminal intent or Mens Rea of a killing. Non-culpable homicide includes those committed in self-defence. Self-defence is only admissible if the assault resulting in murder was unprovoked. (Self-defence against unprovoked Assault Section 34 CCC)<\/p>\n The mandatory sentence for any adult (or youth sentenced as an adult) convicted of murder in Canada is a life sentence, with various time periods before a person may apply for\u00a0parole<\/a>\u00a0<\/sup>and A\u00a0youth<\/a>\u00a0(12 to 17 years) who is not sentenced as an adult does not face a life sentence. Instead, if convicted of first degree murder, they must serve a maximum sentence of 10 years, with a maximum of 6 of those years spent in custody. If convicted of second degree murder, they must serve a maximum of 7 years, with a maximum of 4 of those years spent in custody.\u00a0<\/p>\n In South African law, when you commit an offence, it can occur through intent, negligence, or both. Culpable Homicide has been simply defined as the unlawful and negligent killing of human beings. It can be differentiated from murder in that murder requires the killing to be intentional and not merely negligent.<\/p>\n The difference is therefore the form of fault required (negligence as opposed to intention). Negligence is usually established by asking whether a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have foreseen the possibility of killing a person and would have taken steps to guard against that occurrence. As a result it\u2019s an objective test. To prove culpable homicide it\u2019s necessary to show that the accused\u2019s conduct fell short of that which would be expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances. Culpable homicide charges most commonly result from car accidents or motor collisions where a motorist\u2019s negligent driving causes the death of other motorists or pedestrians.<\/p>\n \u201cCulpable homicide\u201d is defined as whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.\u00a0<\/p>\n The\u00a0Penalty Law of the People\u2019s Republic of China,\u00a0as amended in 1997, provides for a penalty of death, or\u00a0imprisonment for life<\/a>\u00a0or no less than 10 years, for \u201ckilling with intent.\u201d However, the penalty for \u201cminor killing with intent\u201d is imprisonment for no less than 3 years. In practice, \u201ckilling with indignation\u201d (killing someone who is obviously very harmful to the society) and killings committed in excessive\u00a0defence<\/a>\u00a0are considered \u201cminor.\u201d<\/p>\n Murder is the unlawful killing of human being with malice aforethought. Malice can be expressed (intent to kill) or implied. Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule). The exact terms of the felony murder vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Life sentencing for murder in the United States has a mean of 349 months (29 years one month) and a median of 480 months (40 years). However, some states\u2019 sentencing contemplates a full life\u2019s confinement, whence the sentence of confinement is not deemed fulfilled while the convicted person lives; and the only way to fulfil the sentence (and thereby obtain release from confinement) is by the individual\u2019s death.<\/p>\n These sentences are termed natural life and\/or life without the possibility of parole. In the\u00a0United States<\/a>,\u00a0the law regarding\u00a0murder<\/a>\u00a0varies by jurisdiction. In most U.S. jurisdictions there is a hierarchy of acts, known collectively as\u00a0homicide<\/a>, of which\u00a0first degree murder\u00a0and\u00a0felony murder<\/a>\u00a0are the most serious, followed by\u00a0second degree murder, followed by\u00a0voluntary manslaughter<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0involuntary manslaughter<\/a>\u00a0which are less serious, and ending finally in\u00a0justifiable homicide<\/a>, which is not a crime at all. However, because there are at least 52 relevant jurisdictions, each with its own criminal code, this is a considerable simplification.\u00a0<\/p>\n Sentencing also varies very widely depending upon the specific murder charge. \u201cLife imprisonment\u201d is a common penalty for first and second degree murder, but its meaning varies widely.<\/p>\n Murder is defined in the New South Wales (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 as follows: Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime.<\/p>\n Under NSW law, the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 20 years, or 25 years for the murder of a child under the age of 18 or of a police officer or public official. Attempted murder carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. Note that in order to be guilty of murder under the NSW Crimes Act, intent to cause grievous bodily harm is enough to secure a conviction for murder, as is felony murder (constructive murder in Australia).<\/p>\n There is a statutory defence of provocation in NSW law; if provocation is proven and the person would have otherwise been convicted of murder, directs the jury to find the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.<\/p>\n JUDGEMENT-<\/strong><\/p>\n Jury Trial<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n The jury in the Greater Bombay Sessions Court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty, with an 8-1 verdict. Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Ratilal Bhaichand Mehta (the Sessions Judge) considered the acquittal as perverse and referred the case to the High Court.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n High Court Verdict<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n The High Court dismissed the Jury\u2019s verdict on the basis of the following arguments made by the prosecutor:<\/p>\n \u00a01) The onus of proving that it was an accident and not premeditated murder was on Nanavati.\u00a0<\/p>\n 2. Sylvia\u2019s confession, or any specific incident in Ahuja\u2019s bedroom, or both did not amount to grave and sudden provocation.\u00a0<\/p>\n 3. The judge wrongly told the jury that the provocation can also come from a third person.<\/p>\n \u00a04. The jury was not instructed that Nanavati\u2019s defense had to be proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person.\u00a0<\/p>\n Supreme Court<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0The SC upheld the decision of the High court on the following grounds:\u00a0<\/p>\n 1. As per the defence case, the accused was thinking of the future of his wife and children which indicates that he had not only regained his senses but also was planning for the future.<\/p>\n \u00a02. The time lapse between the confession and murder was sufficient to regain his self-control.<\/p>\n \u00a03. The mere fact that before the shooting the accused abused the deceased and the abuse provoked an equally abusive reply could not conceivably be a provocation for the murder.\u00a0<\/p>\n Impact<\/strong><\/p>\n \u25cf Abolition of Jury trials.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u25cf There was media scrutiny which brought about Nanavati as a victim of foul play, who even in worst hours stood for honour and wellbeing of his family.<\/p>\n \u25cf Nanavati was pardoned by the then Governor Vijay Lakshmi Pandit, after spending 3 years in jail.<\/p>\n This was the last case to be heard as a jury trial in India, as the government abolished jury trials soon after in most cases.<\/p>\n REFERENCES<\/strong><\/p>\n BRIEF ABOUT AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n Nikita Soni is pursuing B.B.A.LL.B from Mody University, Rajasthan. She is interested in law and wants to serve the society in legal matters. Her past internship experiences include working as an intern under a lawyer at Jodhpur High Court for 1-month. She is currently doing online internship at Vidhishala.<\/p>\n \t<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" DECIDED ON-\u00a024th\u00a0November, 1961 BENCH-\u00a0K. Subbarao, SK Das, Raghubar Dayal INTRODUCTION A landmark case in the criminal history of India, K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra has been a case discussed like ever since now. This judgment made its place as soon as it was pronounced. This landmark judgement of India received unprecedented media attention as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7078881,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[159686,11618,239574,5296,125951],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-7078880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-k-m","tag-maharashtra","tag-nanavati","tag-state","tag-vidhishala"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
Definition of Murder<\/h3>\n
Act by which death is caused was done with intention of causing death<\/em><\/h4>\n
Having intention to cause bodily injury which is likely to cause death<\/em><\/h4>\n
When injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature<\/em><\/h4>\n
Having the knowledge of the dangerous at<\/em><\/h4>\n
Exceptions<\/h3>\n
Provocation<\/em><\/h4>\n
If done under the ambit of private defence<\/em><\/h4>\n
Public Servant<\/em><\/h4>\n
Death caused in a sudden fight<\/em><\/h4>\n
Punishment for Murder<\/h3>\n
Attempt by Life Convicts<\/h3>\n
Constitutionality of Section 303<\/h3>\n
Attempt to Murder<\/h3>\n
When culpable homicide is not murder?<\/em><\/h4>\n
The position of law related to Culpable Homicide and murder and punishment for the same in other countries like USA, Canada, Australia, China, Australian, Singapore, and South Africa.<\/h3>\n
Canada:<\/em><\/h4>\n
South Africa<\/em><\/h4>\n
Singapore<\/em><\/h4>\n
China<\/em><\/h4>\n
United States<\/em><\/h4>\n
Australia<\/em><\/h4>\n
\n
\n