Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010188662025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./36/2026 MANJURUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA S/O LATE HARIS ALI BARBHUIYA, R/O WATER WORKS ROAD, P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE PP ASSAM, 2:APPU MAZUMDAR S/O ALA MIA 3:BAPPU MAZUMDAR S/O ALA MIA 4:PAPPU MAZUMDAR S/O ALA MIA ALL ARE R/O VILL.- MADHURBOND AMMERIA LANE P.S.- SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001. 5:HASAN LASKAR S/O FAKAR UDDIN LASKAR R/O WATER WORKS ROAD P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001. Page No.# 2/4 6:SAJHIB AHMED HIS FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O WATER WORKS ROAD P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001 Advocate for the Petitioner : ABHISEK BHATTACHARJEE, MR. S PAUL,MR. S CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. DARAK ULLAH, AMICUS CURIAE (R-2),MR. B SINHA (R-3 to R-6),MR. H ISLAM (R-3 to R-6),MR. M.A. BARBHUIYA (R-3 to-R-6) :: BEFORE :: (HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA) Advocate(s) for the Petitioner : Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, Advocate. Advocate(s) for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. B. Sarma, Addl. P.P., Assam. Advocate(s) for the Respondent No.2 : Mr. D. Ullah, Advocate. Advocate(s) for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6 : Mr. B. Sinha, Advocate. Date on which judgment is reserved : 02.04.2026. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.06.2026. Whether the pronouncement is of the Page No.# 3/4 operative part of the judgment? : YES. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : YES. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing Respondent No.1 as well as Mr. D. Ullah, the learned counsel representing Respondent No.2. Heard Mr. B. Sinha, the learned counsel representing Respondent Nos.3 to 6. 2. This is an application under Section 438, 442 of the BNSS, 2023 challenging the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No.201/2023. 3. In a case under Section 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution side has already examined 21 witnesses and one court witness. After closure of hearing of the evidence, the case was posted for recording statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. 4. At that time, the informant filed an application seeking permission to introduce some CCTV footages. It may be mentioned that these CCTV footages were not seized by the Investigating Officer during the period of investigation. Some video footages were already seized by police and exhibited during hearing of evidence. 5. The trial court found that the CCTV footages intended to be introduced by the informant related to some other facts not connected with the incident where the murder took place. Therefore, the trial court refused the prayer of the informant. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides. 7. There is no doubt that the order dated 03.04.2025 is an interlocutory order and no revision lies against an interlocutory order. Page No.# 4/4 8. Moreover, the CCTV footages intended to be introduced by the informant did not relate to the incident of murder but related to some ancillary incidents. In a case instituted under Police Report, the private complainants have little role to play except for assisting the Public Prosecutor. Here, in this case, a private individual is trying to interfere with the functioning of the trial court. I find that the trial court had not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference of this Court. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant