Court says electronic material not part of charge-sheet cannot be added during trial at the instance of the informant; dismisses revision and leaves maintainability question open.
The Orissa High Court has dismissed a criminal revision filed by an informant seeking permission to introduce a pen drive as evidence during the pendency of a sessions trial, holding that there is no provision in criminal procedure allowing a victim to independently bring fresh material on record midway through trial when such material was not collected during investigation or included in the charge-sheet.
Justice V. Narasingh, hearing CRLREV No. 997 of 2025, upheld the trial court’s refusal to accept the pen drive, which the informant claimed contained recordings having a direct bearing on the case. The accused in the trial had already been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 354, 354-A, 376(2)(n), 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant argued that the investigation had been perfunctory and that exclusion of the pen drive would prejudice her case. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and a Rajasthan High Court decision in Shwetabh Singhal v. J.K. & Sons, both dealing with the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, the High Court held that those judgments address the mode and requirements of proving electronic evidence, not the separate question of whether a victim can introduce fresh material during trial when it was never part of the prosecution record. The Court noted that the pen drive admittedly did not form part of the investigation materials or the charge-sheet.
The Bench emphasized that criminal prosecution is generally an offence against the State, with the Public Prosecutor conducting the case on behalf of society. Citing Thakur Ram v. State of Bihar and Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand, the Court reiterated that a criminal trial cannot be transformed into a contest between a private complainant and the accused. The role of the victim’s counsel is limited, and the prosecution cannot be bypassed.
The Court also relied on observations in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar to underline the accused’s right to receive all prosecution documents before trial begins under Section 207 CrPC. It observed that full disclosure of the prosecution material is a valuable component of the right to a fair trial, and permitting fresh electronic material during trial, without prior supply in the charge-sheet, would be inconsistent with that right.
Rejecting the petitioner’s contention, the Court found no legal basis in the CrPC or the BNSS enabling a victim to place such material on record in the midst of trial. It therefore upheld the trial court’s order and dismissed the revision as devoid of merit.
The interim order passed earlier was vacated, and the High Court directed the trial court to proceed with the matter expeditiously. The Court, however, left open the question of maintainability of the revision.
Bottom Line :
Criminal trial - Victim/Informant cannot, in the midst of trial, seek introduction of electronic material such as pen drive which was not collected during investigation and does not form part of charge-sheet - In absence of any provision in Cr.P.C./BNSS enabling such course, and having regard to accused's right to prior disclosure of prosecution material for fair trial, rejection of such prayer is proper - Question of maintainability of revision left open.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 354, 354-A, 376(2)(n), 294, 506 IPC, Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 207 CrPC, Section 301 CrPC
Shashmita Nayak v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985305
