106 the accused pressurized, forced the P.W. 1 by stating her to go for outing and when she refused his proposal he was in a revenge mood and threatened her and committed the heinous crime of uploading the hacked or unauthorizedly obtained the nude videos on internet by labeling her name and her father’s name. The accused created pressure or he would publish private photos and the motive of the accused is very much clear. How much the accused was angry as while uploading the nude videos the accused had given the father’s name of the victim P.W. 1 along with the name of the victim. Ld. Special PP at the time of argument relied a citation reported in State vs Jeet Singh (1999)4 SCC 370; see also Nathuni vs State (1998)9 SCC 238 and State vs Babu Ram (2000)4 SCC 515 where it was held that “Every criminal act is done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused”. In this context Ld. Special PP at the time of argument relied a citation reported in AIR 1972 SC 54 : 1972 CrLJ 7 where it was held that “Motive and opportunity to commit the crime present. Circumstantial evidence excludes the reasonable possibility of any one else being the culprit. The accused become fixed” and argued that here in this case accused wanted to fulfill his demand and when P.W. 1 refused, he uploaded the sexually explicit video containing her private parts without her permission and knowledge and again, he collected her nude videos by unauthorizedly accessing her mobile collecting her password from her diary which was accessible to him in their good times. Hence motive and opportunity to commit the crime was available and present. Again the available circumstantial evidence excludes the reasonable possibility of any one else being the culprit other than the present accused person, the allocated IP address, the IMEI no., the Gmail and Pornhub account in his name, the Vodafone and Jio connections number used and their availability in the seized mobile phone from the accused person only proved his involvement in the commission of the heinous crime which has devastated P.W. 1’s life. In this present case many certificates u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act were issued by the witnesses who had prepared it and