77 showed is https://www.pornhub.com and that specific URL ends with “badF224” and so P.W. 11 also stated about the URL and that it ends with “badF224” and this court finds that the URL which is mentioned in exhibit 1 ends with “badF224”. P.W. 11 burnt the content of the URL and which P.W. 18 had marked exhibit C and sent to CFSL and from the CFSL report this court finds that the girl who is present in “Exhibit H” was found to be same in exhibits C, D, E and also with the exhibits G1 to G9. This court further finds from the said report that the video file “victim daughter of victim father’s name” – Pornhub.com of the exhibit C with the other video files contained in exhibit D and E and the girl present in the photographs as exhibits G1 to G9 was found to be same and exhibit C contains the downloaded video contents of the URL which is mentioned in exhibit 1. Moreover P.W. 1 herself stated that the video belongs to her. So, now this court can safely presume that the girl who is present exhibit C and other exhibits is the victim i.e. the complainant of this case. So, this court can hold that the nude pictures and videos of the victim had been uploaded in various websites apart from the website www.pornhub.com as the mat exhibits 2/8 and 5/3 contained the download videos of others websites URL links and mat exhibit 4/3 contained the downloaded video of the URL which is mentioned in the written complaint and CFSL report shows that the girl who is present in the videos in mat exhibits 2/8, 5/3 and 4/3 are the same with that of the contents of mat exhibit 3/2 which contained the photos and video of P.W. 1 which P.W. 1 had given consent to capture her photos and video in the Photography Cell, CID and later on it was burnt in the CD by P.W. 10 who also issued certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act. At the time of argument the Ld. Special PP relied upon a citation reported in (1972) 1 Supreme Court Cases 249 where it was held that “Report of Director from Finger Print Bureau can be used without examining person giving such report”. In this present case the CFSL report has been marked as exhibit on the basis of the petition u/s 294 Cr. PC and that petition was allowed by this court after hearing both the parties and that order had not been challenge from the defense side before any higher forum. So, this court relies upon the CFSL report which stated that the girl who is present in “Exhibit H” was found to be same in exhibits C, D, E and also with the exhibits G1 to G9.