116 number used and their availability in the seized mobile phone from the accused person are all to be explained from his special knowledge. The Ld. Special PP referred a citation AIR 1979 SC 400 : 1979 CrLJ 329 where it has been held that “Conduct of an accused during the course of an investigation is admissible” and argued that here in this case in 313 Cr. P.C. statement the accused person that “I have not stated anything to anyone. I had not shown anything to anyone. They took my signatures forcibly in few papers and I signed into it as because the bathroom was not good there and I was unable to use it and they told me if I sign into it they I will be shifted elsewhere with good bathroom”. Now forcibly means the accused indirectly admitting his signatures. The accused stated that he had not uploaded anything means it is within the special knowledge of the accused. But ironically and surprisingly enough the accused person who was as per law all the time represented by Ld. Advocate, never raised or retracted from the fact that he had stated before the CID officer being P.W. 18, which is a valuable evidence as per section 27 and 8 of Evidence Act, during the time he was produced from the PC. In Ravirala Laxmaiah vs. State of Andhrapradesh 2013(3) SCC (Cri)911 (2013)9 SCC 283 it was observed that “A Circumstantial evidence – failure to explain incriminating circumstances – is an additional link to chain of circumstances – false explanation or no explanation offered by accused to incriminating circumstances put to him – when accused is last seen with deceased in his house, accused is duty bound to explain circumstances under which deceased died – failure to explain or false explanation would create a strong suspicion about guilt of accused”. This court further finds when the question regarding seizure dt. 21/7/17 was asked the accused simply stated that he used to stay at hostel. But again no explanation had been furnished by the accused. The prosecution has placed exhibits 7/6, 8/12 and 8/13 regarding Google and Pornhub. P.W. 1 in her cross examination stated that the website www.pornhub.com is open in India. At the time of argument the Ld. Lawyer for the accused submitted that there is nothing called Google and Pornhub. It clearly means that it is within the special knowledge of the accused u/s 106 Indian Evidence Act but failed to establish it. P.W. 3 in his cross examination stated that “It is not a fact that there is no website www.pornhub.com in India”. There