75 list and the seized articles, the requisitions. P.W. 18 stated the details of the seized articles in seizure list dt. 07/8/17 and there was mention of the certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and this court thus holds that the seizure list is properly done and there are no contradictions at all as all the prosecution witnesses supported regarding taking of photos and video of P.W. 1 and the procedure followed thereafter till the seizure list was prepared. It has been clearly stated by P.W. 18 in his examination in chief that he had sent requisition 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 P.W. 8 supported this in his cross examination when P.W. 8 stated that “The camera contained memory card and not reel”. Thus this seizure list has been duly proved by the prosecution. Now, it also appears that P.W. 18 had marked as exhibit G1 to G9 to the nine photos of P.W. 1 which he had seized from P.W. 9 and stated the details about the folder and files names which contained in the CD (mat exhibit 3/2) in order to sent it to CFSL and in total P.W. 18 had sent five packets which P.W. 18 had marked as exhibit C, exhibit D, exhibit E, exhibits G1 to G9 and exhibit H. P.W. 18 identified the duplicate CFSL form (exhibit 53) which had been prepared and typed by him in the same mechanical process of the original form and those forms had been forwarded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur along with the exhibit B, exhibit C, exhibit D, exhibit E, exhibits G1 to G9 and exhibit H which was duly packed, labeled and signed by him and Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur duly forwarded the same and the original form was sent to CFSL, Kolkata along with the exhibit B, exhibit C, exhibit D, exhibit E, exhibits G1 to G9 and exhibit H and the duplicate form was kept with the case docket and on 21/8/17 P.W. 18 had submitted the original CFSL form along with the exhibit B, exhibit C, exhibit D, exhibit E, exhibits G1 to G9 and exhibit H and identified the receipt of the same from CFSL, Kolkata (exhibit 54) and the case file no. is CFSL(K)/EE/2017/FED/WB/1548 dt. 21/8/17. From exhibit 38 it appears that it is the forwarding letter addressed to Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur from the Director of CFSL, Kolkata and where the Forensic