104 which has been registered from his gmail account are relevant facts which had been discovered. In Gajraj Vs. State (2011)10 SCC 676 it was held that “Every mobile handset has an exclusive IMEI number. No two mobile handsets have the same IMEI number. And Every time a mobile handset is used for making a call beside recording the number of the caller as well as the person called, the IMEI numbers of the handsets used are also recorded by the service provider”. In this present case the IMEI number of mat exhibit 8 in the CFSL report (exhibit 41) and the IMEI number which Reliance Jio Infocomm had provided (exhibit 45) matches with each other and this mat exhibit 8 was seized from the possession of the accused Animesh Boxi. The defence story was repeatedly reflected on the point of conventional seizure procedures of tag, label etc. which if at all presents in this case is of no consequence or significance as mobile always carry the best and the exclusive identity i.e. IMEI number which is not so fragile like tag, label etc. and which cannot be deleted or destroyed by any means. The IMEI number, CDR, SDR, CAF is an ultimate proof of the physical device and his virtual identity beyond the control of investigating agency or any individual to destroy the same that is why the Hon’ble Court opines this way in Gajraj v. State (NCT of Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 2272 as “Use and possession of mobile handset of murdered person, stolen at time of incident, on date of murder itself, by accused, as mobile phone SIM number registered in name of accusedEstablishment of – Exclusiveness of IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number of every mobile handset – Utilised in proving guilt of accused – Existence of even serious discrepancy in oral evidence, held to yield to conclusive scientific evidence” and in this context Ld. Special PP at the time of argument relied a citation reported in Ajmal Amir Kasab vs State of Maharashtra (2012)9 SCC 1 : (2012)3 SCC (Cri) 481 where it was held that “The relevance of electronic evidence is also evident”. Now this court holds that this accused Animesh Boxi had uploaded the nude pictures and videos of victim. It has been stated by P.W. 1 in each and every videos of her nude video posted online her name is written along with her father’s name. There was grudge on the part of the accused. So, at the time of upload this accused had