2026:JHHC:16772 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1018 of 2022 -------- 1. Animesh Kumar Singh, aged about 29 years, S/o. Hariom Singh, 2. Pankaj Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh, aged about 33 years, S/o. Udit Singh, 3. Chhotu Singh @ Amit Raj, aged about 35 years, S/o. Lallu Prasad Singh. All are R/o. Vill.- Hariharganj, P.O. & P.S.- Hariharganj, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Vijay Kumar Sinha, S/o. Late Ram Bahadur Lal, R/o. Vill. + P.O. & P.S.- Hariharganj, Dist.- Palamau, Jharkhand. …… Opp. Parties -------- PRESENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate : Ms. Shabina Perween, Advocate : Ms. Sumitra Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Anuradha Sahay, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate : Mr. M.L. Emmanuel Kujur, Advocate : Mr. Tarun Kumar No.1, Advocate C.A.V. On: 12/05/2026 Pronounced On: 10/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.P.P. and learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2. 2. Instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 30.07.2022 passed in S.T. No. 93 of 2022 arising out of Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 154 of 2021 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder, Misc. Criminal Application No. 1122 of 2022 filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the accused (petitioners) has been rejected. 2 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1018 of 2022) Factual Matrix:- 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this revision is that on 13.11.2021 at about 11:30 P.M., son of the informant, namely Sumit Srivastav was called upon by Animesh Singh on phone. After some time, the younger son of the informant called Sumit Srivastav on his mobile phone and asked him to return home, upon which Sumit Srivastav told that he is with Animesh Singh, Pankaj Singh, Chhotu Singh and Dr. Anuj and will return after 10 minutes. When the younger son of the informant again called to Sumit Srivastav after 10 minutes but no response was received. When he inquired from friends of his brother (Sumit Srivastav), then came to know that he had not arrived there. In the next morning, i.e., 14.11.2021 at about 5:00 A.M., one Chandan Prajapati informed through telephonic call that vehicle of Sumit Srivastav has been parked near Hariharganj hospital and Sumit is also lying in the vehicle. It is alleged that when the informant alongwith other family members reached at the place of occurrence, they found Sumit Srivastav lying in vehicle under pool of blood. The informant has expressed strong suspicion and belief that the above named accused persons under conspiracy have killed his son and left him in the vehicle. 4. On the basis of above information, F.I.R. was registered being Hariharganj P.S. Case No. 154 of 2021 for the offences under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against the above named accused persons (petitioners). 5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offence under Section 302, 120(B), 201/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Case was committed 3 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1018 of 2022) to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 93 of 2022 was registered and petitioners preferred a Discharge Application under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., which was rejected and the same has been assailed in this Revision Application. Submission on behalf of the Petitioners:- 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion and on their own confessional statement leading to no recovery furnishing as a ground for their involvement in the alleged offence of murder. It is further submitted that as per confessional statement of the accused persons, the gun shot injury sustained by the deceased was accidental one and not intentional and at best offence under Section 304 of the I.P.C. was made out. Therefore, impugned order is absolutely illegal and based beyond materials available on record and liable to be set aside. Submission on behalf of the Opp. Parties:- 7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no. 2 assisted with the learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions and has submitted that it is not the question as to what type of offence either under Section 302 I.P.C. or Section 304 Part-I I.P.C. is committed by the accused persons at present stage of proceedings rather the same has to be decided after leading evidence by the prosecution during trial of the case. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for any interference and this revision is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, discussion and reasons:- 4 | P a g e ( Cr. Revision No. 1018 of 2022) 8. I have gone through the impugned order in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both the parties. It appears that the petitioners have disputed in this revision application that offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is not made out rather there was accidental fire wherein at the time of testing the pistol, the deceased got firearm injury and died. Therefore, offence falls under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. The material point raised by the petitioners is subject matter of trial and to be decided after taking evidence adduced by the prosecution and defence, if any. It is trite that the charge can be framed even on the ground of strong suspicion available against the accused persons. In the instant case, admittedly, the deceased proceeded to the house of accused persons and they were all along together and the explanation offered in their confessional statement about accidental fire shot injury to the deceased, is sufficient to frame the charge. 9. In view of above, I don't find any substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the petitioners and there is no merit in this revision which is, hereby, dismissed. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. 11. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent through FAX to the concerned Court for needful and information. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated:10/06/2026 Rahul/NAFR Uploaded on 11/06/2026