Private Informant Cannot Introduce Unseized Evidence in Police Report Cases or Challenge Interlocutory Orders via Revision.

The petitioner (informant) challenged an order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, in a murder trial involving Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC.

After the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and the case was posted for recording the accused's statements under Section 313 CrPC, the petitioner filed an application to introduce additional CCTV footages.

These footages had not been seized by the Investigating Officer during the investigation.

The trial court rejected the application, finding that the footage related to ancillary facts rather than the incident of murder itself.

1. Whether a criminal revision petition is maintainable against an order refusing the introduction of additional evidence at the stage of Section 313 CrPC.

2. Whether the trial court committed a jurisdictional error by refusing the informant's prayer to introduce CCTV footages not seized during investigation.

The court applied Section 438 and 442 of the BNSS, 2023 (alternatively referred to in the context of the procedural bars under Section 397(2) of the CrPC/corresponding BNSS provisions) regarding the non-maintainability of revision petitions against interlocutory orders.

The court further upheld the principle that in cases instituted on a police report, private complainants have a limited role, primarily to assist the Public Prosecutor rather than independently interfere with trial proceedings.

The High Court observed that the trial had reached an advanced stage where evidence was closed and statement recording under Section 313 was pending.

The court reasoned that the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 was purely "interlocutory" in nature, and as per settled law, no revision lies against such orders.

On merits, the court found that the CCTV footages in question were not part of the original police investigation and did not directly relate to the commission of the murder, but were directed at "ancillary incidents".

The court noted that a private individual cannot be permitted to interfere with the trial court's functioning in a state-prosecuted case where the Public Prosecutor is the lead.

It held that the trial court committed no jurisdictional error in refusing the introduction of unrelated evidence at a late stage.

The petition was dismissed.