IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42875 of 2007 1. RAM JAPU SINGH, SON OF LATE BINDA SINGH. 2. SHUSHIL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RAMYASH SINGH. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JANDAHA, P.S. PATAHI, DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. …………………………………………………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. CHUNCHUN DEVI, WIFE OF NAND KISHORE SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JARDAHA, P.S. PATAHI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- 2. 9.1.2009. Heard Dr. Abhay Krishna, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anand Mohan, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners, who are F.I.R. named accused of Sessions Trial No.532 of 2007 arising out of Patahi P.S. Case No.52 of 2004, have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 24.8.2007 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari, whereby he has rejected their prayer for discharge. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that although these two petitioners were named in the F.I.R., after due investigation the police submitted a final form so far as these two petitioners are concerned and submitted chargesheet against the remaining others. It is also submitted that on the date of occurrence accused petitioner, Shushil Kumar Singh, was posted at Rai Bala , Dehradun, which is almost 1200 kilometers away from the place of occurrence and that the accused petitioner Ram Japu Singh was in private service at Kolkata. - 2 - It appears that the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sikrahana at Motihari on perusal of the case diary, F.I.R. and chargesheet differed from the police report and also took cognizance against these two petitioners. That order taking cognizance was never sought to be challenged by these two petitioners. It appears from the impugned order of the Sessions Court that there was direct evidence against the petitioner Shushil Kumar Singh of having shot dead Babloo Singh. He is also said to have shot Suman Singh with an intention to kill him. That apart the plea of the petitioners of their being not present at the place of occurrence on the relevant date as they were at Dehradun and Kolkata respectively is their defence. Such alibi can only be proved by leading cogent evidence and cannot be acted upon merely on the statement of the petitioners. Accordingly, I find no merit in this application so as to call for any interference by this Court and dismiss this application. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)