Shashmita Nayak v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack | 19 September 2026 | Justice V. Narasingh
CRLREV No. 997 of 2025 | CNR No. ODHC010876652025 | 2026:OHC:138

1. Case snapshot

Particular	Details
Court	Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Case	Shashmita Nayak v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Case number	CRLREV No. 997 of 2025
CNR	ODHC010876652025
Decision date	19 September 2026
Judge	Justice V. Narasingh
Petitioner	Shashmita Nayak, informant/victim
Opposite parties	State of Odisha and Surendra Kumar Gantayat @ Suresh Kumar Gantayat
Evidence involved	Pen drive containing recordings of the petitioner and the accused
Main issue	Whether a victim could introduce material during trial that had not been collected during investigation or included in the charge sheet
Outcome	Criminal revision dismissed; trial court’s refusal to introduce the pen drive upheld

2. Background and facts

The case arose from a criminal proceeding in which the accused had been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 354, 354-A, 376(2)(n), 294 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

After the charge sheet was filed, the informant appeared in the proceedings. During the trial, she sought permission to introduce a pen drive containing recordings of herself and the accused. According to her, the recordings were directly relevant to the case and their exclusion would prejudice her.

The trial court rejected the request. The matter subsequently reached the Orissa High Court through a criminal revision petition.

The procedural history was important. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court regarding the same material. In an earlier order dated 16 October 2025, the High Court had directed the trial court to reconsider the application on its merits. On reconsideration, the trial court again rejected the request on 21 November 2025.

The petitioner therefore filed the present revision challenging that rejection.

3. Legal issues

The High Court’s consideration centred on two important procedural questions:

1. Whether a victim could introduce material during an ongoing criminal trial that had not been collected during investigation and did not form part of the charge sheet.
2. Whether the criminal procedural framework provided a legal mechanism for the victim to introduce such material at that stage of the proceedings.

A further issue concerning the maintainability of the revision petition was also raised before the Court. The Court ultimately left that question open and decided the matter on the substantive procedural issue concerning introduction of the pen drive.

4. Relevant legal concepts

A. Charge sheet and disclosure of prosecution material

In a criminal prosecution, the investigation culminates in a police report or charge sheet containing the material collected during investigation and relied upon by the prosecution.

The accused is entitled to receive the relevant prosecution documents so that they can understand and prepare to meet the case against them.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal was particularly relevant to the High Court’s reasoning. The Orissa High Court referred to the principle that, in criminal trials, documents on which the prosecution intends to rely must be disclosed to the accused so that the accused has a fair opportunity to prepare the defence.

B. Role of the victim

The Court recognised that the petitioner was the informant and victim. However, the victim’s participation in a criminal proceeding does not mean that the victim can introduce evidence independently of the procedural framework governing the prosecution.

The Court emphasised the role of the State and the Public Prosecutor in conducting a criminal prosecution. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand concerning the limited role of a privately engaged counsel appearing for the victim in a prosecution conducted by the Public Prosecutor.

C. Electronic evidence

The material sought to be introduced was a pen drive containing recordings. The petitioner relied, among other things, on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, a leading Supreme Court decision concerning electronic evidence and Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

However, the Orissa High Court made an important distinction: the issue before it was not simply whether the pen drive could satisfy the requirements for admissibility of electronic evidence.

The more fundamental question was whether the victim could introduce this new material during the trial when it had not been collected during investigation and had not formed part of the charge sheet.

5. Arguments before the Court

Petitioner’s position

The petitioner argued that the pen drive contained recordings directly relevant to the allegations and that its exclusion would prejudice her case.

She relied on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and other decisions to support the argument that the electronic material could be considered by the trial court.

She also argued that the investigation had been perfunctory and that excluding material relevant to the merits of the case would undermine the interests of justice.

State and accused’s position

The State and the accused opposed the request.

Their position was that the victim could not introduce additional material independently during an ongoing trial when that material had not formed part of the prosecution’s charge sheet.

The parties also relied on Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, particularly the principles concerning disclosure of prosecution material and the accused’s right to a fair opportunity to defend the case.

6. Court’s reasoning

A. The pen drive was not part of the investigation material

The Court noted that the pen drive sought to be introduced had not been collected during the investigation and did not form part of the material submitted before the trial court.

This fact was central to the Court’s analysis.

B. The procedural framework did not provide for the requested course

The Court observed that the petitioner could not identify a provision under the CrPC or the BNSS that would permit a victim to place before the court, during the middle of the trial, material that did not form part of the charge sheet.

The Court therefore declined to create such a procedural route merely on the ground that the material might be relevant to the case.

C. The accused’s right to a fair trial had to be protected

The Court acknowledged that procedural technicalities should not ordinarily defeat justice. However, it stressed that the rights of an accused, protected by the criminal procedural framework, could not be overlooked.

The disclosure of prosecution material serves an important purpose: it allows the accused to know the case they must meet and prepare their defence before the trial proceeds.

The Court relied on the principles discussed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, including the importance of supplying prosecution documents to the accused before commencement of the trial.

D. The issue was broader than electronic admissibility

The petitioner relied on Section 65-B jurisprudence to argue for consideration of the electronic recordings. But the High Court explained that the cases cited by the petitioner did not answer the different procedural question before it: whether material not collected during investigation could be introduced by the informant-victim in the middle of the trial.

Therefore, satisfying electronic-evidence requirements would not by itself solve the separate problem of whether the material could be introduced through the procedure sought by the petitioner.

7. Judgment and final order

The Orissa High Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s decision rejecting the petitioner’s request to introduce the pen drive during the trial.

The criminal revision petition was therefore dismissed.

The Court also:

• Vacated the interim order;
• Left the question of maintainability open; and
• Directed the trial court to proceed with the matter expeditiously.

The Court’s decision therefore did not establish that electronic evidence can never be introduced after a charge sheet has been filed. Rather, it addressed the particular attempt by the victim to introduce material during the ongoing trial when the material had not been collected during investigation or included in the charge sheet.

8. Legal principle

The decision establishes an important procedural distinction:

A victim’s interest in placing relevant material before a criminal court does not, by itself, create an unrestricted right to introduce new evidence during an ongoing trial outside the procedural framework of criminal law.

Where the material was not collected during investigation and does not form part of the charge sheet, the court must consider whether the applicable procedural law permits its introduction, while also protecting the accused’s right to a fair trial and prior disclosure of the material relied upon by the prosecution.

9. Why this case matters

For criminal law students

The case demonstrates that criminal trials are governed not only by questions of relevance and truth but also by procedural safeguards protecting both sides.

For evidence law students

The case shows the difference between admissibility of electronic evidence and the procedural authority to introduce new material during trial. These are related but separate questions.

For students studying victims’ rights

The judgment illustrates that a victim’s participation in criminal proceedings does not place the victim in the same procedural position as the Public Prosecutor or investigating agency.

For procedural law

The decision highlights the importance of the charge sheet and prior disclosure of prosecution material in protecting the accused’s ability to prepare a defence.

10. Simple example for beginners

Suppose the police investigate a criminal complaint and file a charge sheet containing the documents and evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely.

Halfway through the trial, the victim finds a new recording and asks the court to admit it.

The fact that the recording may be relevant does not automatically mean that the court must admit it. The court must first consider whether the criminal procedure allows the material to be introduced at that stage and whether admitting it would affect the accused’s procedural rights.

That is the basic procedural problem examined by the Orissa High Court in this case.

11. Quick revision

Question	Answer
Which court?	Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Case	Shashmita Nayak v. State of Odisha & Anr.
Case number	CRLREV No. 997 of 2025
Decision date	19 September 2026
Judge	Justice V. Narasingh
What evidence was involved?	Pen drive containing recordings
Was the pen drive part of the investigation material?	No
What did the victim seek?	Permission to introduce the pen drive during the ongoing trial
What did the High Court decide?	It upheld the rejection of the request
Was the revision dismissed?	Yes
Was the maintainability issue finally decided?	No, it was left open
Key legal concern	Procedural limits on introducing new material during trial and protection of the accused’s fair-trial rights

One-line takeaway

A victim cannot introduce new material during an ongoing criminal trial merely because it may be relevant; the material must be introduced through a legally recognised procedure that also protects the accused’s right to a fair trial.