Dismissed¶08

Raju Khan @ Raju Kha v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC11 Dec 2025CR. REV./999/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court Criminal Revision No.999 of 2025, decided 11-12-2025 by Justice Arun Kumar Jha: revision by accused Raju Khan @ Raju Kha against rejection (order dt. 23.07.2025, Addl. District Judge, 1st Bagaha, S. Tr. No. 12/2023, arising out of Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 422 of 2022, West Champaran) of his application under Section 39 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 r/w Section 348 BNSS 2023 seeking expert opinion on informant Nurain Ansari's signature on the fardbayan; held impugned order reasoned and free from illegality, two-views principle applied, Joseph v. State of Kerala AIR 2003 SC 507 distinguished; revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order does not suffer from any impropriety, irregularity or illegality; it is a reasoned order, giving this Court no basis to intervene. ¶06

Raju Khan @ Raju Kha Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶08

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 of the learned trial court rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 read with Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 (for expert opinion on the informant's signature on the fardbayan) is sustainable, or whether it should be set aside.

¶03

Court's answer

The impugned order does not suffer from any impropriety, irregularity or illegality; it is a reasoned order, giving this Court no basis to intervene.

¶06

Ratio / Principle

Even if two views are possible, this Court cannot impose its opinion on the view taken by the learned trial court; the law stands settled on this point.

¶06

Key takeaways

The facts of Joseph v. State of Kerala (AIR 2003 SC 507) are completely different: there the FIR bore a signature of doubtful character which PW1 himself admitted was different from the one given on the acknowledgment of receipt of the summon, and the conviction rested on the testimony of a solitary eye witness; the facts are therefore distinguishable and the reliance placed on Joseph is misconceived and not applicable.ratio¶06
Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the Court found no occasion to interfere with the impugned order dated 23.07.2025 and affirmed it.ratio¶07

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision, Patna High Court (Arun Kumar Jha, J) — Trial court's (Addl. District Judge, 1st Bagaha) order dated 23.07.2025 in S. Tr. No. 12/2023 CIS No. 22/2023 (Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 422 of 2022) rejecting the accused's application under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 read with Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 — seeking expert opinion on the informant's signature on the fardbayan (informant allegedly incapable of signing owing to bullet injury in the scalp) — affirmed; revision dismissed. Held: (i) the impugned order is reasoned and free from impropriety, irregularity or illegality — the trial court had noted that no question on the absence of the informant's signature on the FIR was put in cross-examination, and that questions of genuineness could be considered while appreciating other evidence at the final hearing; (ii) even if two views are possible, this Court cannot impose its opinion on the view taken by the learned trial court; (iii) Joseph v. State of Kerala, AIR 2003 SC 507 distinguished — there the FIR bore a doubtful signature which PW1 himself admitted differed from his acknowledgment signature, and conviction rested on a solitary eye witness; reliance on it misconceived and not applicable.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL REVISION No.999 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-422 Year-2022 Thana- RAMNAGAR District- West Champaran

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Raju Khan @ Raju Kha Son of Late Rauf Khan Resident of Village - Meghwal Mathiya, Ward No.- 5, Police Station - Ramnagar, Dist.- West Champaran

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Nurain Ansari Son of Late Hakik Ansari Resident of Village - Mathiya, Police Station - Ramnagar, Dist.- West Champaran, Presently Resident of Village - Narainapur, Ward No.- 10, Police Station - Ramnagar, Dist.- West Champaran

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shahbaj Alam, Adv. For the Informant : Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Kumari Akanksha Rai, Adv. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 11-12-2025

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶14

learned counsel for the informant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1^st Bagaha, West Champaran in S. Tr. No. 12/2023 CIS No. 22/2023 arising out of Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 422 of 2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has filed an application before the learned trial court contradicting the signature of the informant on fardbayan and making prayer

¶16

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.999 of 2025(2) dt.11-12-2025 2/5

¶17

under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 read with Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023 for sending the copy of the fardbayan for getting an expert opinion on the handwriting of the informant. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned trial court.

¶18

Learned counsel next submits that as per the fardbayan, the informant sustained bullet injury in his scalp and was not in a position to put the signature on the fardbayan during the relevant time as bullet was stuck in the scalp and was removed only after surgery. From perusal of the signature of the informant on the fardbayan and on his deposition, they appear to be different and it creates doubt over the veracity of the prosecution story. For this reason the petitioner filed this application before the learned trial court which rejected the same without applying its judicial mind to the facts of the case. The learned trial court did not appreciate the material facts and ignored the provision contained under Section 39 and 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Learned counsel further submits that great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if his application seeking expert opinion on the signature of the informant on the fardbayan is not allowed. Learned counsel further refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶19

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.999 of 2025(2) dt.11-12-2025 3/5

¶20

case of J oseph Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2003 SC 507 in support of his contention. Learned counsel further submits that in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of doubtful signature on FIR set aside the conviction of the accused. Learned counsel thus submits that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same be set aside.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petition filed before the learned trial court was only to delay the trial. The defence has been adopting this technique to delay the proceeding and they also filed application for examination of their witnesses after the defence evidence was closed. In the present matter, the learned trial court after considering all the facts has passed the impugned order which does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶22

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

¶23

From perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned trial court took note of the fact that when the informant was being examined, no questions were put to the

¶24

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.999 of 2025(2) dt.11-12-2025 4/5

¶25

witness in cross examination about the FIR not containing his signature. The learned trial court also considered the evidentiary value of the FIR and the expert opinion making it clear that questions raised on genuineness could also be considered while appreciating other evidences at the time of final hearing of the case. But the most important aspect of the matter is that the Court did not find any credible basis for allowing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. I do not find any such impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order to intervene in the matter for the simple reason that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. It is a reasoned order. Even if two views are possible, this Court cannot impose its opinion on the view taken by the learned trial court and law stands settled on this point. In the case of Joseph (supra), facts are completely different. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the FIR contained signature of a doubtful character which PW1 himself admitted as having being different from the one given by him on the acknowledgment of having received the summon. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered the fact that the conviction was based on the testimony of solitary eye witness. Therefore, the facts are distinguishable and the reliance placed on Joseph (supra) is

¶26

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.999 of 2025(2) dt.11-12-2025 5/5

¶27

misconceived and for this reason not applicable.

¶28