Crime Stories

Murder and killings

The Tarakeswar affair (1874)

This case, the oldest in this article, involved a public scandal that occurred in 19th century Bengal during British rule. The case was called Queen v. Nobin Chandra Banerjee (1874) and here Nobin Chandra, a government servant was charged with the murder by decapitation of Elokeshi, his wife because of her love affair with the Brahmin head priest, or Mahant of the temple of Tarakeshwar. The Hooghly Sessions Court at Serampore took up the case and during the entire trial, the Court had transformed into a ‘theatre’. The media also contributed heavily to the increasing publicity of the case.

The defence attorney claimed that Nobin Chandra had committed the act in a fit of rage and to ensure that his wife had to belong to him. It was claimed that when Elokeshi confessed about her actions to the defendant, Nobin wanted to protect her and shift her from her parent’s house, over which the Priest had control. But the latter became aware of these plans and his goons prevented the shift from happening, leading to Nobin Chandra killing his wife. Nobin then immediately went to the Police to confess his crimes.

The entire series of events painted Nobin as the victim. The jury eventually acquitted the defendant on the grounds of insanity. But the Sessions judge overturned the judgement on the ground of “disagreement on the native sense of justice” and sent the case to the Calcutta High Court wherein the defendant was held guilty.

However, Nobin was not the only person under trial. For the general public, Nobin was justified in his actions and the Mahant was the one that was the actual criminal. The Mahant was tried under Section 497 of the newly passed Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Sessions Judge convicted the priest and imposed a punishment of three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rupees 2,000. On appeal, the conviction was upheld. The public felt that Nobin Chandra was unjustly convicted while the Mahant had gotten away easily. Within three years, due to popular public demand and protests, Nobin Chandra was released from prison.

The murder of ghosts – Ram Bahadur Thapa (1959)

This was a very peculiar case, called State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (1959). J.B. Chatterjee of the Chatterjee Bros. firm in Calcutta employed Ram Bahadur Thapa as a servant. They had gone to Rasgovindpur, a village in Orissa’s Balasore district, to buy scrap from an abandoned airport outside of town. The local people considered that area haunted and the same was made known to the visitors. As they drove to the aerodrome late at night, they noticed a flickering light within the premises that seemed to move because of the strong winds. Thapa leapt into action, brandishing his khukri in the direction of the ‘ghosts.’ They turned out to be indigenous Adivasi ladies with a hurricane light who had congregated under a mahua tree to gather flowers. Thapa injured two women and killed another and thus was charged with Section 302 (murder), Section 326 (grievous hurt with dangerous weapons) and Section 324 (hurt with dangerous weapons) of the Penal Code. The Sessions Judge held that the accused committed the acts under a bona fide mistake of fact, thinking that he was attacking ghosts and not human beings and hence acquitted him relying on Section 79, which talks about acts justified by law or acts which under a mistake of fact is thought to be justified by law. The petitioners challenged this through an appeal to the Supreme Court saying that through extra care and caution, this event could have been averted. But the Court dismissed these arguments and said that Ram Bahadur Thapa had to be accorded the protection of Section 79.

The Nanavati murder case (1959)

This case, K.M. Nanavati v. the State of Maharashtra (1961) is one of the landmark cases in Indian history and marked the end of jury trials in India. K.M. Nanavati was a respected naval officer who killed his wife’s extra-marital lover, Ahuja in 1959. Nanavati, after committing the crime went to the local police and turned himself in. The main point of contention was whether the action of Nanavati was due to grave provocation or it was a pre-mediated murder. The petitioners contended that during a confrontation of Nanavati with Ahuja, the latter stated that he “could not marry every woman he slept with”, which led to Nanavati killing Ahuja. Their arguments were based on the fact that Nanavati committed the murder in the heat of the moment and thus it was a case of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. (Exception 1 under Section 300). The Respondents contended that Nanavati had, after listening to his wife’s confession, dropped her and their children off to the cinema, gone to his ship to procure a rifle and then gone to visit Ahuja. It was contended that it was clearly implied that Nanavati had the intention to murder Ahuja and there was no sudden provocation.

The jury of the trial court declared K.M. Nanavati was found not guilty with an 8:1 majority verdict. The verdict, like the Tarakeswar case, reflected the popular sentiment that sympathised with Nanavati. But the Session’s judge overturned the verdict and sent it to the High Court of Bombay wherein the Court held the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgment, saying that Nanavati had plenty of time to calm down and thus it was a case of premeditated murder. However, he was granted parole on grounds of ill health in 1963 and then later pardoned by the Governor of Bombay. The higher judiciary, purely on the touchstone of law, found Nanavati guilty. But beyond the realm of law is the world of morality; was Nanavati morally right in killing a man who had destroyed his marriage and family? The public opinion felt that Nanavati had been wronged, so did the jury, but not the law.