97 being recorded. But in such an event adverse inference could be drawn against him”. In Munna Kumar Upadhyay @ Munna Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh; AIR 2012 SC 2470 it has been held that “False denial made by the accused of established facts can be use as incriminating evidence against him”. From the entire cross examination of P.W. 1 there is nothing that the accused did not know the defacto complainant or that there was no relation with P.W. 1 and the accused and during the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr. PC denied it and thus this court can draw adverse inference against the accused and when the question of marriage is put in the cross examination of P.W. 1 and the accused denied it or failed to explain it then false denial made by the accused of established facts can be used as incriminating evidence against him. P.W. 2 stated that while her daughter was studying in the college then there was love affairs in between her daughter and the said Animesh Boxi and due to this love affair the said accused had stolen some nude pictures of her daughter from her mobile phone and had uploaded those nude pictures of her daughter in different porn websites and P.W. 2 went to the P.S. and as her daughter was broken so she dictated it and P.W. 2 had written the complaint and it was read over to her daughter and her daughter had also seen it and then her daughter put her signature into it and he also signed into it (exhibit 1/2). P.W. 2 further stated that on 07/8/2017 he went to CID office along with her daughter and there the mobile phone of her daughter was seized by the C.I.D. and P.W. 2 identified the seizure list and his signatures into it (exhibit 4/1). P.W. 2 identified the mobile phone of her daughter and his signature in the envelope (mat exhibit 1/2). P.W. 2 identified the screen shots which her daughter had submitted along with the written complaint (exhibit 1/4, 1/5 and 1/6). This court further finds from the cross examination of P.W. 2 when P.W. 2 stated that “I had just purchased this phone and had given to my daughter and I do not know anything else. I came to the court to depose on behalf of my daughter” which clearly means that P.W. 1 is using mobile phone. P.W. 7 stated that on 07/8/17 as per requisition she consulted with her superior for taking permission and after verbal permission to assist in connection with Panskura P.S. case no. 381 of 2017 and P.W 18 informed her that the victim’s name who is the complainant of