60 that the expression “fact discovered” includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this. In this present case it has been stated by P.W. 10 that - “Then Animesh Boxi named the sites where he had uploaded the nude pictures and video to Barun Kumar Nayek and then in presence of Uttam Dolui and me, Barun Kumar Nayek opened the website which contained the nude pictures and video and then after seeing it Animesh Boxi said these were those and then Barun babu loaded those video in two DVD.” The knowledge of the accused is very much clear in this case and the information supplied by the accused is direct and immediate cause of discovery and the result is those websites URL where the accused had uploaded the nude video of P.W. 1 and thus this will go into evidence. Except mere denials in the cross examination of P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 18 there is nothing in the cross examinations. In AIR 1959 Cal 213 it was held “Suggestion in cross-examination which is denied by the witnesses is no evidence”. In State vs Sunil (2001)1 SCC 652 it was held that “It is for the accused through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is unreliable. It is not a legally approvable procedure to presume police action as unreliable”. Moreover evidences shows that after such discovery (in this case the URL) those were downloaded by P.W. 11 and were burnt into DVD. During the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr. PC the accused stated before this court that he had not shown anything and his statements were taken forcibly. But one thing really surprised before this court is regarding the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr. PC that the accused had not seen any computer. It is hard to presume that when all the institutions are getting computer-based even the courts today and there will not be no computer at the Cyber Crime Cell, CID. Regarding this P.W. 9 in his cross examination stated that “I can not say whether in other department there are computers or not but in our CID department in every section there are computers” which means that in each sections there are computers. This court from the cross examination of P.W. 11 finds that there was an admission from the defense side that Animesh Boxi had given statement to the I.O. and not to him. Ld. Special PP at the time of argument referred a citation A.N. Venkatesh vs state (2005)7 SCC 714 : 2005 CrLJ 3732 where it was held that “Even if disclosure statement