Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This application was filed for quashing the order dated 21.12.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2003 by which he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to discharge him from the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the story depicted in the F.I.R. is absurd and unbelievable and the prosecution has developed its case subsequently. He referred to the F.I.R. and submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged on 29.4.2002 at 10.00 A.M. i.e. after nine hours of the occurrence and at that time the informant had said that he did not see the assailant. Later on family members of the informant appeared to be the eye witnesses of the occurrence and they named the petitioner. This creates a doubt as to the statements of those witnesses and it is evident that the prosecution has developed its story and brought certain persons who were actually not eye witnesses otherwise the petitioners name would have come in the F.I.R. itself. The second submission is that all the witnesses have named the petitioner and his son but the son of the petitioner works in Merchant Navy and was in America at the time of occurrence. Thus, naming the son of the petitioner as assailant shows falsity of the case and for that reason alone the impugned order is fit to be quashed. 4. It is well settled that under sections 227 and 228 of the Code stage, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out, if, the facts emerging therefrom are taken on the face value discloses the existence of ingredients constituting the offence. 5. The impugned order shows that the informant was not the eye witness of the occurrence but he had raised suspicion against the petitioner on account of land dispute and threat given by him. The order further shows that immediately after the murder some witnesses had seen the petitioner and others running. 5. The impugned order shows that the informant was not the eye witness of the occurrence but he had raised suspicion against the petitioner on account of land dispute and threat given by him. The order further shows that immediately after the murder some witnesses had seen the petitioner and others running. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was quite justified in holding that there is prima facie case under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and he cannot be discharged under section 227 of the Code. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the impugnecd order. 6. This application is accordingly dismissed.