IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE st ON THE 21 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 45553 of 2025 SACHIN SONI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior District Gwalior in S.T. No.235/2017 whereby an application under Section 39(1) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 filed by the petitioner was rejected.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged an F.I.R. in the present matter, pursuant to which the concerned police conducted investigation and filed a charge-sheet. The case proceeded to trial and is presently pending adjudication. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses: PW-1 Mithlesh, PW-2 Ashok, PW-3 Narendra, PW-4 Rampal, PW-8 Ahivaran, PW-11 Indrajeet, PW-14 Abhimanyu, PW-18 Ghanshyam, PW-19 Ankush, and PW-20 Dinesh. However, the remaining witnesses, namely PW-5 Dayaram, PW-6 Ajay, PW-7 Rohit, PW-9 Dharmendra, PW-10 Ghanshyam, PW-12 Yogendra, PW-13 Gambhir, PW-15 Rajesh, PW-16 Pappu Yadav, and PW-

17 Ashish, were not examined in relation to the present accused Sachin. Their statements were recorded only in respect of the co-accused Ashish and K.K. Singh, whose trial stood concluded earlier, resulting in the conviction of K.K. Singh and acquittal of Ashish. The present dispute pertains to the opinion of the handwriting expert concerning Exhibit P-2, P-3, and P-4, on the basis of which the handwriting expert submitted his report. The prosecution relied upon the said expert report and exhibited it as Exhibit-69 and Exhibit-70, seeking to use the same against the present accused. The learned Trial Court recorded an observation dated 07.08.2025 to the effect that the accused does not wish to lead defence evidence. The said observation is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable, as on the said date the accused was lodged in jail and had not made any such statement. On the contrary, the accused has consistently expressed his willingness to lead defence evidence, as is also evident from his statement under law. Consequently, the accused filed an application under Section 39(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, on 30.08.2025, seeking permission to lead defence evidence by obtaining a handwriting expert’s opinion. The said application was, however, dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.09.2025, without proper appreciation of facts and law. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 25.09.2025, the present petition has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused has a statutory and substantive right to rebut the prosecution evidence and to lead defence evidence, including by obtaining an independent handwriting expert opinion on the said documents, even at the final stage of trial. the handwriting expert has categorically admitted that specimen signatures are capable of variation if taken afresh at a later point of time for the purpose of comparison. In the present case, the specimen signature of the complainant was taken afresh during investigation, whereas the signatures available on earlier admitted and authentic documents executed by the complainant could have been treated as proper specimen signatures for comparison with the disputed signature. However, the investigating agency failed to adopt this course, as the old admitted signatures of the complainant were never taken as specimen signatures for comparison with the disputed signatures. Further, PW-1 Mithlesh, the complainant herself, has created serious doubt regarding the process of taking specimen signatures in paragraphs 36 and 37 of her testimony. These inconsistenci