For those who haven't seen movies like 'Rustom' or any drama based on the 1959 trial of Naval Commander K. N Nanavati, who shot & murdered his wife's lover, you must read this! The case is usually taught in every law school. But for those unaware of this gripping tale, here's what you must know about the story that unfolded within those hallowed halls, forever altering the course of jury trials in India.
After shooting his wife's lover, Nanavati turned himself into the local police and was put on trial for murder; wherein the jury supported the acquittal of Nanavati, but the judge reversed the jury's verdict holding him guilty, and hence, it is said that the jury's failure to convict Nanavati led to the abolition of jury trials in India.
So what do you mean by jury & jury trial? Let's discuss these & many more in this article.
What is a jury?
A jury is a group of members of the public in court who listens to the facts related to a crime and decides if someone is guilty or not by giving verdicts based on the evidence and witnesses submitted to them. Basically, it is a lawful organisation in which a gathering of laymen takes part in choosing cases brought to preliminary. Its definite attributes and powers rely upon the laws and practices of the nations, areas, or states in which it is found, and there is wide variety. Just so you don’t confuse Jury with Judge, here’s a table of differentiation between the two.
/content-assets/7dc6d6faa7854a9b9999c03579d6a208.png)
Difference between Judge & Jury
|
Basis
|
Judge
|
Jury
|
|
Meaning
|
An individual who presides over a court proceeding. He either acts on his own or with a panel of judges
|
A group of people who are sworn to give a verdict on a case provided by a court, including judgment or penalty.
|
|
Appointment
|
Appointed by the President (with consultation of collegium system)
|
Appointed by the court
|
|
Assistance
|
Usually, a judge works on his own, or with a jury. When works with jury, it is called jury trial
|
Jury always works with a Judge
|
|
Role & task
|
When Judge works with a jury, the judge provides the punishment & simultaneously decides according to the merits of case.
|
Hears evidence & arguments. The verdict can either be unanimous or require only a majority of the jury members’ votes.
|
|
Merits of the case
|
A Judge cannot think emotionally and must talk about the merits of the case
|
Jury may get emotional & unpredictable
|
|
Time consumption
|
A Judge is well aware of the laws, and they do not require long explanations on courtroom topics, hence trial by Judge takes less time.
|
Jury trial is time-consuming. Jurors need lengthy explanations on various courtroom topics, such as ballistics, toxicology, and law terms in general
|
History of Jury System in India
The concept of a jury system is not new in India, as it was once conducted until 1973. Back then, during British rule, the establishment of such a jury system was more of a Western innovation that replaced the traditional Panchayati Raj system before British rule. Juries were basically a group of people, mostly 12 in number. It is also important to note that the jury system was also subjected to several controversies, ultimately resulting in its abolition in our country.
The first case heard by a jury was in 1665 wherein Ms Ascentia Dawes was charged with the assassination of an Indian slave girl. The jury consisted of 6 Englishmen and Portuguese people each. Ultimately, she was acquitted due to the mentality of the crime, so it was seen that the jury system slowly got biased towards the Britishers and ignored Indians.
The Nanavati Case Summary
The case is KN Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra (1962), one of the landmark cases in Indian history. This case, however, didn't quite bring an end to jury trials in India. Intrigued? Stay with us until the end to uncover the suspense. Brace yourself, because the Nanavati case is not the final chapter in India's gripping saga of jury trials. The facts of this case were:
-
Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati (also known by the name, ‘Rustom Pavri’), a senior commanding naval officer, was married to Sylvia, had three children, and was charged with the murder of his wife’s lover “Prem Ahuja”.
-
In the beginning, the jury declared Nanavati as “not guilty”, but later the Bombay High Court reversed this verdict & the matter was retried as a bench trial.
-
Prem Ahuja was an automobile businessman who became friends with Nanavati. The accused, Nanavati being in naval services, had to leave Bombay frequently for work. Therefore, his wife Sylvia Nanavati felt lonely and started to talk with Prem Ahuja.
-
With time, Sylvia built an illicit relationship with Prem Ahuja & she admitted to her husband, and this led to the murder of her lover her husband.
-
Later he went to Ahuja’s house and entered his bedroom to shoot him dead.
-
After the murder, he later turned himself into the police and was arrested under section 302 of IPC.
Judgment of Nanavati case
At Sessions Court, the appellant was charged under S. 302 & S. 304 of the IPC and was tried by the Sessions Judge with the aid of a special jury. The jury passed a verdict of "not guilty" by 8: 1 majority under both the provisions of IPC; which was not agreed by the Sessions Judge, as in his view the jury's verdict was such that with regards to the evidence shown, no reasonable body of men could have passed acquittal verdict.
So, the learned Sessions Judge submitted the case under 307 of CrPC to the Bombay High Court & the Division Bench comprising of Justices Shelat and Naik passed separate judgments but held that the accused was guilty of murder under S.302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Both the Justices of the High Court stated that there were misdirections to the jury and that the accused was clearly guilty of murder and no reasonable body must arrive at such a conclusion as delivered by the jury.
Which was the last case of jury trial in India?
Although it is believed that the Nanavati case is the last jury trial case in India but this unpopular case is the ‘real’ last jury trial in our country, which took place in Kolkata during the elections where two communist activists, namely ‘Prakhar Chandra De’ and ‘Rabindranath Chandra De’ were charged with the assassination of Dipak Sarkar in 1967. 1967 had been a worrisome year due to hikes in prices and food shortages, with Bandhs, strikes, etc., becoming a common situation.
There had been a huge competition between two huge parties, the Congress and the Communist Party of India, Marxist (CPI) in West Bengal during the General Elections of 1967 which marked the fourth election after independence. After the election results were announced, it was seen that the CPI(M) won the elections thereby ending the long rule of the Indian National Congress Party.
Countries where Jury trial still exists
- US
- UK
- Canada
- Australia
- Ireland
- New Zealand etc.
Conclusion
The Nanavati Case, gained a lot of controversy in the nation, pointing out a drastic change in the jury trials in India. The case sparked a significant shift in India's legal landscape, ultimately paving the way for the abolition of jury trials. The Law Commission of India's 14th report recommended this change, and it was implemented through the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1973. The Jury trials which took place till 1973 were ultimately abolished by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was recommended by the Law Commission of India's 14th report in 1958, except, in a particular community in India which try cases through jury trials to date, for example, The Parsis Matrimonial and Divorce Act, 1936, under section 19 and 20 that codifies the jury system for disputes arising between members of the community relating to divorce.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
-
What is the difference between a judge and a jury?
Ans: A judge is an individual who presides over a court proceeding, while a jury is a group of people selected from the public who listen to the facts of a case and deliver a verdict based on the evidence presented.
2. Was the Nanavati Case the last jury trial in India?
Ans. While the Nanavati Case is widely associated with being the last jury trial in India, another lesser-known case occurred in Kolkata in 1967. In this case, two communist activists were charged with the assassination of Dipak Sarkar during the General Elections.
3. What led to the abolition of jury trials in India?
Ans. The Nanavati Case played a significant role in sparking debates and controversies surrounding jury trials in India. Ultimately, the Law Commission of India's 14th report recommended the abolition of jury trials, which was implemented through the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1973.
4. Are there any exceptions to the abolition of jury trials in India?
Ans. Yes, there is one exception where a particular community in India, such as the Parsis, still follows the jury system for resolving disputes related to divorce under the Parsis Matrimonial and Divorce Act, 1936.
5. Who introduced “Jury Trials” in India?
Ans. The jury system was introduced during British rule and was practised until 1973. It replaced the traditional Panchayati Raj system and was initially influenced by Western innovation. However, controversies surrounding biases and inconsistencies led to its eventual abolition.