Direction: Read the passage carefully and answer the corresponding questions:
The case of K.M. Nanavati v. the State of Maharashtra is one of the landmark judgments in the history of the Indian Judiciary. The case received unprecedented media coverage. It is also known to be the last case to be heard as a jury trial in India since the Government abolished the jury system as a result of this case. This case highlights an important concept of ‘Grave and Sudden Provocation’. The petitioner K.M. Nanavati, an Indian Naval Officer, shifted to Bombay with his wife Sylvia and their children. A businessman named Prem Bhagwan Ahuja was residing with his sister in the same city. In 1956, Ahuja and his sister were introduced to Nanavatis through Agniks, who were common acquaintances of Ahujas and Nanavatis. When Nanavati was frequently away from Bombay on his official duty for longer durations then Sylvia, his wife, fell in love with Prem Ahuja and developed Illicit relations with him. When Nanavati returned from his ship he tried to be affectionate to his wife to which she was not being responsive on multiple occasions. On 27 April 1959, Nanavati asked his wife if she had been faithful to him. She merely shook her head to indicate that she was not.
On 27 April 1959, Sylvia confessed to her husband about the Illicit relationship with Prem Ahuja. In the heat of agony, Nanavati went to his ship to procure a loaded revolver and then went to the office of Prem Ahuja. On not finding him at the office he drove to Ahuja’s residence and shot him dead. K.M. Nanavati, the accused, initially was declared not guilty under Section 302 by the Jury with an 8 : 1 verdict. The case was then referred by the Sessions Judge to the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Hon’ble High Court declared the accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC. An appeal was finally made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
A division Bench of the said High Court, consisting of Shelat and Naik, JJ., heard the case. The two learned Judges issued separate decisions, but both agreed that the accused was guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and should be imprisoned for the rest of his life. After concluding that the jury had been misled, Shelat, J. evaluated the complete evidence and concluded that the accused was plainly guilty of murder; alternatively, he expressed the opinion that the jury’s finding was perverse, irrational, and, in any case, contrary to the weight of evidence. Naik, J., opted to reach his finding on the alternative argument that no reasonable group of people could have reached the jury’s conclusion. Both the learned Judges agreed that no case had been made out to reduce the offence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The present appeal has been preferred against the said conviction and sentence.