65 signatures of Atanu Santra in the seizure list (exhibits 18/4 and 18/5) and the seizure list dt. 29/7/17 (exhibit 18/6). P.W. 18 identified the DVD (mat exhibit 2/8) and his signature and date in the DVD (mat exhibit 2/9) and P.W. 18 mentioned “Exhibit E” and stated that mat exhibit 2/8 had been burnt by SI Gunasindhu Sahoo after being downloaded and screen captured about the links which had been mentioned in the seizure list (exhibit 18/6) and also identified his signatures into it (exhibits 18/4 and 18/5). P.W. 18 also identified the Disclosure Memo (exhibit 19/6) and his signatures into it (exhibits 19/4 and 19/5). P.W. 18 also stated that he had prepared a label pasted in the DVD case and also signed into it to send the DVD to the CFSL and identified the label (Mat exhibit 2/10) and identified the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act issued by SI Gunasindhu Sahoo and the URL were mentioned in it along with the screen shots of the same. P.W. 6 stated that Animesh babu stated him and Sukanta Roy that he told his lover to go with him to Digha but the said lady refused to go to Digha and so, in anger he took some nude pictures and video of the lady and uploaded it into the porn website and then the accused showed that pictures and video and the CID officer who downloaded those and burnt those pictures and video in a DVD. On perusal of exhibit 19/6 this court finds that its the Disclosure Memo of the remand accused of this case and it had been duly signed by P.W. 6 who also identified the signatures and date of Sukanta Roy and P.W. 18 also signed in to it. According to this exhibit 19/6 this court further finds that URL links are mentioned. In this occasion also the information was clear, immediate and proximate cause of the discovery and P.W. 16 had burnt the same in a DVD and thus 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. Ld. Special PP at the time of argument pointed out the highlighted portion marked with red ink marked as exhibit 19/7. On careful perusal of the cross examinations of P.W. 6, P.W. 16 and P.W. 18 regarding this there are mere denials and nothing else. The evidences shows that after such discovery (in this case the URL) those were