The Supreme Court on Monday raised serious questions over the sentencing approach adopted by the Jharkhand High Court in a murder case involving two convicts, observing that the benefit of probation may have been wrongly denied to one of the accused. While hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by Kapildeo Mandal and another, the top court issued notice to the State and sought its response on whether the younger convict was entitled to relief under the Probation of Offenders Act.
The matter was heard by a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Rail Project Land Compensation, Sets Aside High Court’s Blanket Cancellation
Background of the Case
The case arises from a criminal appeal decided by the Jharkhand High Court in 2024. Kapildeo Mandal and Dilip Mandal were originally tried for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court had found both accused guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹10,000 each.
Challenging this verdict, the convicts approached the Jharkhand High Court. After re-examining the evidence, the High Court altered the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The sentence was reduced to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000 each.
What the Supreme Court Observed
While hearing the Special Leave Petition, the Supreme Court noted a legal inconsistency in the High Court’s reasoning.
The Bench pointed out that the High Court had brought the case under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which deals with sudden fight and lack of premeditation. However, despite invoking this exception, the High Court convicted the accused under Section 304 Part II, instead of Section 304 Part I.
“The High Court having invoked Exception 4 of Section 300, the conviction ought to have been under Section 304 Part I,” the Bench observed.
The Court, however, clarified that since the State had not challenged the High Court’s judgment, it would not interfere with the classification at this stage.
Key Issue: Probation for Young Accused
A major point of concern raised by the Supreme Court was the age of the first petitioner, Kapildeo Mandal.
The Court noted that:
- Kapildeo Mandal was only 20 years old at the time of the offence.
- The offence ultimately stood under Section 304 Part II, which carries a maximum punishment of ten years.
- Under such circumstances, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could have been considered.
“The High Court should have examined the applicability of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act in the case of the first petitioner,” the Bench remarked.
This provision allows courts to release young offenders on probation instead of sentencing them to imprisonment, depending on the facts of the case and the character of the accused.
Read also:- Customary Law Can’t Bar Widow’s Property Rights, Says Punjab & Haryana High Court
Court’s Decision
After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court passed the following directions:
- Delay in filing the petition was condoned.
- Exemption application was allowed.
- Notice was issued to the State of Jharkhand on the limited question of granting probation to the first petitioner.
- The matter has been made returnable on 10 February 2026.
- Petitioners were permitted to serve the State counsel with the complete paper book.
The Court made it clear that the issue under consideration is limited to whether the benefit of probation should have been extended to the younger accused.
Case Title: Kapildeo Mandal & Anr. vs State of Jharkhand
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 70266 of 2025
Decision Date: 27 January 2026
