48 of proving fact especially within knowledge. P.W. 5 stated that “Student has to fill up registration form online by himself” and exhibit 10 has been filled up on a paper and not online and according to section 106 of the Indian Evidence if the admission form is filled up online then no such defense had been taken regarding filing up the admission form at that relevant point of time when the accused had filled up the admission form. On perusal of exhibit 10 carefully this court finds that it has been written there “To be filled by the candidate carefully” which means that the candidate himself had filled up the exhibit 10 and in the serial no. 1 “name of the candidate” it is written “ANIMESH BOXI” and also in the bottom of exhibit 10 “Animesh Boxi�� is written over the head full signature of the candidate. On the overleaf of exhibit 10 this court finds that there is a certificate given with the name Tapas Satapathi and from the seal it appears “Registrar Budge Budge Institute of Technology” (exhibit 10/5). From exhibit 10/5 this court finds that it has been certified by the Registrar, Budge Budge Institute of Technology and exhibit 10 is the original application form for admission submitted by Animesh Boxi in their office. On perusal of exhibit 10 this court further finds that P.W. 11 and P.W. 16 had also signed into it which P.W. 11 and P.W. 16 had stated in their evidences and P.W. 18 also identified his signature and his endorsement and date. The cross examination of P.W. 5 shows nothing that Animesh Boxi had not filled up the admission form. P.W. 5 also produced the forwarding letter (exhibit 11/2) and on perusal of exhibit 11/2 this court finds that it is a forwarding letter issued by Tapas Satapathi who authorised Bajendra Gupta to submit exhibit 10 and addressed to Addl. O/C, Cyber Crime Investigation Cell, CID and it is written that in connection with Panskura P.S. case no. 381/17 dt. 21/7/17. Moreover, this court finds that Tapas Satapathi and Bajendra Gupta had signed into it which P.W. 5 had identified it. From the case record this court finds that this case arose from Panskura P.S. case no. 381/17 dt. 21/7/17 which means that exhibits 10 and 11/2 were submitted by P.W. 5 in connection with this case. In exhibit 11/2 this court further finds that in the said document P.W. 11 and P.W. 16 also put their signatures and identified it. P.W. 18 also identified exhibit 11/2 which he had seized in connection with this case and stated that it had also been signed by witnesses and also