Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Friday, 07 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-02-26 partly_allowed

SHANKAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Bench: 2 — R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy

In Brief

Three siblings were convicted of arson (Section 436 IPC) and voluntarily causing hurt (Section 323 IPC) arising from a land boundary dispute. The Supreme Court held that only appellants 1 and 3 (husband and wife) should be convicted for setting fire to the complainant brother's house, as appellant 2 (Vivek) merely pelted stones and lacked shared common intention. While non-compoundable offences cannot be formally compounded, compromise is a relevant factor for sentencing. The Court reduced sentences to time served for appellants 1 and 3, and acquitted all three of the hurt charge under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. given the family reconciliation."

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Procedure Indian Penal Code Common Intention Arson Sentencing Compromise and Settlement Land Disputes

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login