83 P.W. 17 also stated that the accused after seizure told him that he had got an account in www.pornhub.com and with his gmail mail account animeshbokshi18@gmail.com and uploaded nude videos to pornhub website and also told P.W. 17 that few days ago without knowing victim transferred her nude video from her mobile phone and he has also got another mail id animeshboxi19@gmail.com. Ld. Special PP at the time of argument referred a citation 39 CWN 368;37 CrLJ 775 where it was held that “Statement of the accused accompanying or explaining his conduct is relevant” and this court finds that P.W. 17 stated “The accused after seizure told me that he had got an account in www.pornhub.com and with his gmail mail account animeshbokshi18@gmail.com uploaded nude videos to pornhub website. He also told me that few days ago without knowing victim he transferred her nude video from her mobile phone and he has also got another mail id animeshboxi19@gmail.com. and this is the said statement of the accused” and thus statement of the accused is explaining his conduct and is relevant. Ld. Special PP at the time of argument relied a citation reported in AIR 1971 SC 28 where it was held that “Evidence of investigating Officer conducting a search may be relied upon. Corroboration not necessary”. Ld. Special PP at the time of argument relied a another citation reported in AIR 1960 SC 500 ; 1960 CrLJ 682 where it was held that “Piece of conduct can be held to be incriminating which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. Conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence is material”. P.W. 14 stated that on the night of 21/7/2017 he went to the house of the accused Animesh Boxi and there the accused told P.W. 17 that the mobile phone was with him and took them to the first floor of the house and gave his mobile phone and his laptop in the hands of C.I. saheb who then prepared seizure list and the articles were HP laptop, the mobile phone with the name Motorola, two sim cards one of Vodafone and another Jio and one SD memory card and he had signed (exhibit 36) on the seizure list as a witness. P.W. 14 also stated that Animesh’s uncle Ardhendu Sesher Boxi and Amalendu Sekhar Boxi also signed on the siezure list in his presence. P.W. 14 identified mat exhibit 7 and mat exhibit 8. In this context Ld. Special PP relied a citation State vs Navjot Sandhu (2005)11 SCC 600: 2005 Cr LJ 3950 where it was held that “There is no such inflexible position