In Brief
This case involved three appellants convicted of arson and hurt arising from a boundary dispute between brothers with adjacent agricultural fields. The trial court and high court convicted all three under Section 436 IPC (arson) read with Section 34 IPC (common intention) and under Section 323 IPC (hurt). The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal: it set aside appellant no. 2's conviction under Section 436 read with Section 34 IPC, finding no evidence he shared common intention with the principal offenders, though his conviction for hurt was sustained. For all appellants, the Court reduced sentences to time already served and set aside the hurt convictions, citing compromise between the parties as a relevant sentencing factor.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.