109 “Police evidence could not be thrown out because of non-availability of independent evidence. Examination of all witnesses, held, not always necessary if others have given satisfactory account of incident” and this citation is applicable in this case and Ld. Special PP also referred a judgment AIR 1957 SC 857 : 1957 CrLJ 1346 where it was held that “Proof of genuineness of document. Proof of contents of document modes provided in secs. 45 and 47 may be used” and argued that in this case various evidences are proved by expert report and the signatures of Jyotirmoy Biswas and Sukanta Roy was proved by the person acquainted with their signatures. As regards to the allocated IP to Jio connection number and its details matching with the details of the accused person was elaborately proved by the P.W. 16. Another very important point is that another mobile number being 9733185096 of Vodafone was in the name of Barnali Baksi being the mother of the accused person and the most important evidence coming from the P.W. 12 proves the fact that the accused opened his bank account using the same mobile number and the most shocking incident is that in statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused completely disown both the connections which are elaborately proved to be in his name or used by him at the relevant point of time. In this present case P.W. 11 stated in his examination -in- chief that, “The URL ends with badF224 plus other four video URL has been uploaded using email id animeshbokshi18@gmail.com under user name “Anibokshi”. The “last_login” on “07/20/2017” (mm/dd/yyyy) and the current “status” of video is “deleted” and “status_reason” is “Self Deleted”. The Ld. Lawyer for the accused at the time of argument submitted that if for sake it is considered the accused had deleted on 20/7/2017 then how it is possible for P.W. 11 to get the videos on 22/7/17. In this context this court finds that from exhibit 7/6 it appears that the contents of the video was not deleted on 20/7/17 but the account in pornhub was deleted by the accused. The device with which the videos were uploaded was found from the possession of the accused and it has been proved that through this device those videos were uploaded by the accused and this case was filed on 21/7/17 and just one day before i.e. on 20/7/17 the accused entered into his pornhub account and had deleted the account and the status