Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2697
1 MCRC-45553-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 21st 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/22/2026 10:21:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2697 2 MCRC-45553-2025 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.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/22/2026 10:21:43 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2697 3 MCRC-45553-2025
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 inconsistencies cast a shadow on the reliability and sanctity of the specimen signatures relied upon by the prosecution.
4. It is further submitted that the prosecution has placed reliance upon reports Ex. P-69 and P-70 in respect of Exhibits P-2 to P-4. In such circumstances, the accused has a valuable and substantive right to rebut the said evidence by leading defence evidence. Denial of permission to obtain an independent handwriting expert opinion, even at the final stage of trial, would result in grave prejudice to the accused and would amount to curtailment of a valuable right guaranteed under law.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/22/2026 10:21:43 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2697 4 MCRC-45553-2025
5. It is further submitted that the procedure of taking specimen signatures itself appears doubtful, as admitted not only by PW-1 Mithlesh but also by PW-20 Dinesh, who has conceded that specimen signatures can be altered or manipulated to obtain a favourable report. In view of these admissions, the applicant had moved an application seeking comparison of the disputed signature with the old admitted signatures of the complainant. The learned court below, however, failed to consider this crucial aspect and mechanically rejected the application, thereby passing the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside.
6. It is further submitted that the admitted signatures of the complainant were readily available from her registered sale deed as well as from the specimen signatures maintained in her other bank accounts. These admitted signatures could and ought to have been collected and forwarded to a handwriting expert for comparison and examination with the disputed signatures appearing on Exhibits P-2, P-3, and P-4. Such admitted signatures clearly qualify as valid specimen signatures for the purpose of expert comparison under law. However, the learned court below failed to consider these vital legal and factual aspects and proceeded to ignore the availability and relevance of such material evidence, thereby causing a grave miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the impugned order is legally unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the present application seeking comparison of signatures through an independent handwriting expert has been filed at a highly belated stage, i.e., when the Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/22/2026 10:21:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2697 5 MCRC-45553-2025 case is fixed for final arguments. The entire prosecution evidence has already been concluded, and even defence evidence has been led and closed. The timing of the application itself clearly demonstrates that the same has been filed only with the intent to delay the conclusion of the trial and to protract the proceedings.
8. It is further submitted that allowing such an application at this stage would seriously prejudice the prosecution, undermine the finality of trial proceedings, and set an unhealthy precedent where trials can be endlessly prolonged by filing successive applications at the stage of final arguments. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is submitted that the learned trial court has passed a reasoned and lawful order after due application of mind. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or jurisdictional error. The present petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Upon consideration of the factual matrix, it is evident that the F.I.R. was lodged long back, investigation was completed, charge-sheet was filed and the case has proceeded to an advanced stage of trial. The prosecution has examined all its witnesses relied upon against the present accused and the evidence has been closed. The record further reveals that the matter presently stands fixed for final arguments. The application seeking comparison of signatures through an independent handwriting expert was moved only at this belated stage.
11. The contention of the petitioner that the accused has an absolute Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/22/2026 10:21:43 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2697 6 MCRC-45553-2025 and indefeasible right to lead defence evidence at any stage of the trial cannot be accepted in the manner sought to be canvassed. Undoubtedly, an accused has a valuable right to rebut the prosecution evidence and to lead defence evidence; however, such right is not unbridled and is always subject to the discipline of procedure, the stage of trial, and the discretion of the Court. It is well settled that the right to lead defence evidence does not mean that an accused can, at his own sweet will, reopen the trial or delay its culmination. The Court is duty-bound to balance the rights of the accused with the necessity of ensuring expeditious and fair conclusion of criminal proceedings.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, (2008) 5 SCC 633, has held that though an accused has a right to fair trial and to adduce evidence in defence, the Court retains the discretion to refuse such a request if it is found to be vexatious, intended to delay proceedings, or not essential for a just decision of the case.
13. The submission that the admitted signatures of the complainant were available on earlier documents and bank records also does not advance the petitioner's case at this stage. The investigation having concluded long back and the trial having reached its final stage, permitting fresh collection of documents and a de novo expert exercise would inevitably result in reopening of evidence and protraction of proceedings. Criminal trials cannot be permitted to be converted into endless exercises, particularly when no convincing explanation is forthcoming as to why such a prayer was not made at an earlier and appropriate stage.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/22/2026 10:21:43 AMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2697 7 MCRC-45553-2025
14. The impugned order does not suffer from any patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. The order dated 25.09.2025 clearly reflects due application of mind and represents a sound and plausible exercise of judicial discretion.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out. The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE ojha Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA OJHA Signing time: 1/22/2026 10:21:43 AM