73 Mat exhibit 3/14 – Signature of L. Nato Singh in mat exhibit 3/2. So, it appears before this court that on 07/8/17 P.W. 1 gave consent in writing to capture her photos and videos for the purpose of investigation and it appears from exhibit 5 that P.W. 1 gave her consent voluntarily to capture her photos and video and P.W. 2 who is the father of P.W. 1 also corroborated with the evidence of P.W. 1 and also signed on the said document. P.W. 18 stated that on 07/8/17 P.W. 1 came with her father and he sent a requisition after getting approval from superior to Smt. Kakali Ghosh Kundu, Inspector of police, O/C, POWC, Cell, CID, West Bengal and P.W. 7 admitted it that Atanu Santra took consent from victim for taking her photography and video and victim gave her consent in writing for taking her photography and video and corroborated the evidence with P.W. 18. This court finds from exhibit 5/3 that that P.W. 7 had given her endorsement that photography was taken in her presence with utmost modesty and P.W. 7 also signed into it. It also appears from the evidence of P.W. 18 who sent requisition to O/C, Photography Bureau, CID, West Bengal to depute competent photographer for digital photography of victim and further requested to provide the photos and videos of the concerned victim in soft copy as well as in hard copy with proper certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and O/C Photography Cell, CID, West Bengal and engaged constable Krishanu Ghosh for computer processing and ASI Partha Pradhan for still and video photography. From exhibit 21 this court finds that there is such endorsement in exhibit 21/2 and P.W. 18 also signed into it (exhibit 21/1). Exhibit 5/5 shows the requisition sent to O/C, Photography Cell, CID, West Bengal and it bears the signature of P.W. 18 and this court finds it is in connection with this case P.W. 18 had sent requisition. So, what this court finds now that P.W. 1 had given her consent and P.W. 2 corroborated it and in presence of P.W. 7 the witness P.W. 8 with video camera and with still camera in presence of P.W. 7 captured video and photography and later came to know that he had recorded video and captured photo of victim’s name in connection with Panskura P.S. case no. 381/17 and handed over the video camera and still camera to the constable of his cell namely Krishanu Ghosh and P.W. 8 identified the endorsement of his O/C (exhibit 21). P.W. 9 also corroborated with the evidences and stated P.W. 18 gave requisition to O/C Photography Cell and the requisition