Bhaylubhai Chimanbhai Kukana Vs. State of Gujarat - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/675647 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Dec-04-2000 |
| Case Number | SLP (Crl.) No. 2687/2000, Crl. A. No. ... of 2000 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2687/2000) |
| Judge | G.B. Pattanaik and; B.N. Agarwal, JJ. |
| Reported in | 2004(3)SCALE670; (2003)10SCC255 |
| Acts | Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302 |
| Appellant | Bhaylubhai Chimanbhai Kukana |
| Respondent | State of Gujarat |
| Disposition | Appeal allowed |
Excerpt:
.....is liable to compensate for loss.
interpretation of statutes. interpretation of terms used in insurance policy held, intention of parties has to be kept in view. if intention sub-serves terms that are used, full and extended meaning should be given to terms used - muralidhar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the state, we set aside the impugned order of the high court and direct that the high court would do well in disposing of the criminal appeal no 342 of 1998 within a period of three months from today......the appellant preferred an appeal and the appeal has been disposed of by the high court without examining the evidence on record by a very cryptic order, which cannot be held to be an order of the appellate court in accordance with law in this view of the matter and having heard mr. muralidhar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the state, we set aside the impugned order of the high court and direct that the high court would do well in disposing of the criminal appeal no 342 of 1998 within a period of three months from today.4. this appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Judgment:ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave grunted.
3. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I PC and has been imprisoned for life for having killed his wife by strangulation. Against his conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal and the appeal has been disposed of by the High Court without examining the evidence on record by a very cryptic order, which cannot be held to be an order of the appellate court in accordance with law In this view of the matter and having heard Mr. Muralidhar, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the State, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the High Court would do well in disposing of the Criminal Appeal No 342 of 1998 within a period of three months from today.
4. This appeal stands allowed accordingly.