96 regarding the printed screen shots which P.W. 1 submitted with the written complaint. Ld. Special PP at the time of argument referred a citation Domodar Prasad V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 622 where it was held that “The FIR is not substantive evidence. It can be used for one of the limited purposes of corroborating or contradicting that can be used to show the implication of the accused” and stated that here the content in the complaint has fully corroborated by the deposition of the P.W. 1. Ld. Special PP at the time of argument relied another citation reported in 1993 Cr LJ 187 (SC) where it was held that “Evidence of a sole eyewitness who received injury must be wholly reliable”. In the cross examination of P.W. 1 the said witness clearly stated that she had captured her very personal photos as because she was in love with Animesh and believed him so the accused demanded to give those type of photos and if she did not give him photos then the used to show anger to her. In the cross examination of P.W. 1 this court finds that P.W. 1 stated that she did not knew whether the accused wanted to marry her or not now and this court further finds that in the cross examination of P.W. 1 a question had been put as “If the accused wants to marry you whether your father will agree ot not?” and P.W. 1 replied that “I am not agree to the marriage anymore why my father will agree” which means that whatever it may be the accused knows the defacto complainant very well otherwise the question of marriage would not arise. During the examination of the accused person u/s 313 Cr. PC when this court asked that “The P.W. 1, victim’s name has testified before the court and in cross examination she stated that at first you were her friend but later on a relationship developed in between both of you. The close relationship was that at first you were friends and then became very close. She loved you and trusted you and you told her to marry her. What do you have to say in this regard ?” and the accused had given the answer “I have got nothing to say in this regard”. The accused stated nothing and just denied everything about P.W. 1 and if that is so then why the question regarding marriage was asked to P.W. 1 in her cross examination. In the case of Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh; AIR 2014, SC 1256 – the court held that “accused has the right to maintain silence during examination or even remain in complete denial when his statement under section 313, Cr.P.C. is