View Single Post
Old 16-04-2017, 11:28 AM   #7
Rajat Vynar
Diligent Member
 
Rajat Vynar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,056
Rep Power: 29
Rajat Vynar has a brilliant futureRajat Vynar has a brilliant futureRajat Vynar has a brilliant futureRajat Vynar has a brilliant futureRajat Vynar has a brilliant futureRajat Vynar has a brilliant futureRajat Vynar has a brilliant futureRajat Vynar has a brilliant futureRajat Vynar has a brilliant futureRajat Vynar has a brilliant futureRajat Vynar has a brilliant future
Talking Re: कहानी का रूपान्तरण

'नानावटी के मुकदमे' की कहानी को गहराई से जानने के लिए जूरी के फैसले के बाद बॉम्बे हाईकोर्ट में दोबारा चले मुकदमे में अभियोजन पक्ष और बचाव पक्ष द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गए तर्कों को ध्यान से समझना होगा। 'विकीपीडिया' के अनुसार-

Defence version (बचाव पक्ष):

In the Bombay High Court, the defence put forth their version of the incident, for which there were no witnesses other than the two men, and no evidence. Hearing Sylvia's confession, an enraged Nanavati wanted to shoot himself, but was calmed down by Sylvia, who told him that he is not to be blamed for this and there was no reason that he should shoot himself. Since Sylvia did not tell him whether Prem intended to marry her, Nanavati sought to find it out for himself. When Nanavati met Prem at the latter's bedroom, Prem had just come out of the bath dressed only in a white towel; an angry Nanavati swore at Prem and proceeded to ask him if he intends to marry Sylvia and look after his children. Prem replied, "Will I marry every woman I sleep with?", which further enraged Nanavati. Seeing Prem go for the gun, enclosed in a brown packet, Nanavati too went for it and in the ensuing scuffle, Prem's hand caused the gun to go off and instantly kill him.

Prosecution version (अभियोजन पक्ष):

The prosecution's version of the story and their counter-points against the defence's version, was based on replies by witnesses and backed by evidence. The towel that Ahuja was wearing was intact on his body and had neither loosened nor fallen off. In the case of a scuffle, it is highly improbable that the towel would have stayed intact. After Sylvia's confession, a calm and collected Nanavati dropped his family to the theatre, drove to his naval base and according to the Navy log, had acquired a gun and rounds, under a false pretext. This indicated that the provocation was neither grave nor sudden and that Nanavati had the murder planned. Ahuja's servant Anjani testified that three shots were fired in quick succession and the entire incident took under a minute to occur, thus ruling out a scuffle. Nanavati walked out of Ahuja's residence, without explaining to his sister Mamie (who was present in another room of the flat) that it was an accident. He then unloaded the gun, went first to the Provost Marshal and then to the police to confess his crime, thus ruling out that he was dazed. The deputy commissioner of police testified that Nanavati confessed that he had shot dead Ahuja and even corrected the misspelling of his name in the police record.

The High Court agreed with the prosecution's argument that the murder was premeditated and sentenced Nanavati to life imprisonment for culpable homicide amounting to murder. On 24 November 1961, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction.
__________________
WRITERS are UNACKNOWLEDGED LEGISLATORS of the SOCIETY!
First information: https://twitter.com/rajatvynar
https://rajatvynar.wordpress.com/

Last edited by Rajat Vynar; 16-04-2017 at 11:39 AM.
Rajat Vynar is offline