In Brief
Three appellants (two brothers and one woman) were convicted of arson and causing hurt in a boundary dispute between two brothers with adjacent agricultural lands. The Supreme Court found that appellant no. 2, who threw stones at a family member but did not participate in setting fire to the house, could not be convicted under Section 436 IPC (arson) with common intention, as there was no evidence of shared purpose to commit arson. However, his conviction for causing hurt was sustained. The Court allowed a compromise between the parties, reducing sentences to time already served for appellants no. 1 and 3, and acquitting appellant no. 2 under Section 320(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, treating reconciliation as a relevant mitigating factor. Appeal partly allowed."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.