K. M. Nanavati V. State Of Maharashtra Case Study
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra.
Facts:
K. M. Nanavati was the second in Indian Naval Ship when this case was brought up. He was charged with the offence of murder of Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja, a businessman of Bombay. The High Court ordered Nanavati imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This case is of appeal which arises after the life imprisonment judgement of the Bombay High Court. The appellant’s wife was found to have illicit relations with the deceased respondant, Ahuja. Nanavati , after coming to know of the happenings, went to the house of the deceased with a revolver and during a struggle between them, two shots went off and Ahuja died.
The issues that came up were if the appellant was guilty of murder or …show more content…
The other being, on whom the burden of proof in the present case laid. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that the legal provision on the question of burden of proof is almost same in both India and England. The presumption is that the accused is innocent and the burden of proving the otherwise is on the prosecution. But in case 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, 105 of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and also throws a burden on him to rebut the said presumption. Under that section the Court shall presume the absence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions, that is, the Court shall regard the non-existence of such circumstances as proved …show more content…
The judges contended that whether the confession of adultery by wife of the accused did amount to any kind of grave and sudden provocation or not was a question of law. What the court had to keep in mind was whether a reasonable person placed in that similar position would have reacted in the same way or not. The test to be applied is the effect of provocation on a reasonable man. In applying that test, it is of utmost importance to check if sufficient interval had elapsed since the provocation to allow a reasonable man to cool. In addition to this the instrument that was used to commit the homicide is also to be taken into consideration. Mode of resentment must bear a reasonable relationship to the provocation if the offence is to be
Facts:
K. M. Nanavati was the second in Indian Naval Ship when this case was brought up. He was charged with the offence of murder of Prem Bhagwandas Ahuja, a businessman of Bombay. The High Court ordered Nanavati imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This case is of appeal which arises after the life imprisonment judgement of the Bombay High Court. The appellant’s wife was found to have illicit relations with the deceased respondant, Ahuja. Nanavati , after coming to know of the happenings, went to the house of the deceased with a revolver and during a struggle between them, two shots went off and Ahuja died.
The issues that came up were if the appellant was guilty of murder or …show more content…
The other being, on whom the burden of proof in the present case laid. Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act stated that the legal provision on the question of burden of proof is almost same in both India and England. The presumption is that the accused is innocent and the burden of proving the otherwise is on the prosecution. But in case 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, 105 of the Evidence Act raises a presumption against the accused and also throws a burden on him to rebut the said presumption. Under that section the Court shall presume the absence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the exceptions, that is, the Court shall regard the non-existence of such circumstances as proved …show more content…
The judges contended that whether the confession of adultery by wife of the accused did amount to any kind of grave and sudden provocation or not was a question of law. What the court had to keep in mind was whether a reasonable person placed in that similar position would have reacted in the same way or not. The test to be applied is the effect of provocation on a reasonable man. In applying that test, it is of utmost importance to check if sufficient interval had elapsed since the provocation to allow a reasonable man to cool. In addition to this the instrument that was used to commit the homicide is also to be taken into consideration. Mode of resentment must bear a reasonable relationship to the provocation if the offence is to be