SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 18

Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Counsels for the parties :
For the Appellant :Bimal Roy Jad and Ms. Sunita Pandit, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R.K. Adsure, Advocate.

judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, dismissing the appeal of the appellant who faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC) and was sentenced to imprisonment for life by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar.

3.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The complainant Sajay Vithal was serving as a Waiter in Sanjog Hotel for 2-1/2 months prior to the incident. Pradip Panjabi is the owner of the said hotel. Business in the hotel is conducted from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. After closure of the hotel, complainant Sanjay alongwith 5 workers of the hotel used to reside in a staff room. Hotel was closed on 3.11.1999 at 11.30 p.m. Pradip Panjabi and other staff members went out at about 1 a.m. Thereafter on 4.11.1999 around 1.30 a.m. in the night, altercations took place between Ramesh Nayar and Anna Devraj (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) on the point of switching off the lights. Both used to reside in the staff room. At that time, complainant, Kundlik Chavhan and Chhotu intervened. Thereafter complaina










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top