115 Ld. Lawyer for the accused raised no objection and the website pornhub was opened which contained the link of the video and the witness stated that was her video with her name and her father’s name. So, this court finds that there is no delay at all as because P.W. 1 immediately lodged complaint to the P.S. as soon as she saw her nude pictures and videos and the website name is pornhub. Thus the citations as referred by the Ld. Lawter for the accused in (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 147, 1971 (3) Supreme Court Cases 192, (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 670, (1976) 4 Supreme Court Cases 355, (1994) 5 Supreme Court Cases 188, (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 641, (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 428, (1978) 4 Supreme Court Cases 371, (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 583 and (2005) 3 Supreme Court Cases 689 are not applicable in this case. During examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr. PC when the question was put as regards the mobile number 8240136385 is in the name of Animesh Boxi son of Purnendu Boxi and the accused stated that “It is not true that the mobile number 8240136385 is in the name of Animesh Boxi son of Purnendu Boxi”. In Ganesh Vs state (2002) 1 SCC 731 it was held that “It is not necessary for the accused to speak and explain but when the case rests on circumstantial evidence failure of the accused to explain the same would enable an inference being drawn against him, the fact being in the exclusive knowledge of the accused”. In this present case the accused failed to explain the circumstances regarding possession of various computer resources or electronic record namely the allocated IP address, the IMEI no. the gmail animeshbokshi18@gmail.com 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. In State of Rajasthan vs. Kashiram 2007(1) SCC(Cri)688 it was held that “Failure of accused to explain incriminating circumstances against him – effect- accused not explaining where he was after parting company with the deceased with whom he was last seen together – held, provides an additional circumstance in the chain of circumstantial evidence against him” and here in statement u/s 313 Cr. PC the accused person has not given any explanation of involvement of IMEI no of his mobile involved in commission of crime, explanation as regards to the allocated IP address, the Gmail and Pornhub account in his name, the Vodafone and Jio connections