66 downloaded by P.W. 16 and were burnt into DVD. The seizure list was thus prepared and the articles were seized based on the information of the accused. In AIR 1954 Kutch 22: 1954 Cr LJ 801 it was held that “Concealed place will prove knowledge of the accused” and this citation is very much applicable in this case. In this present case it is the accused who only knew in which websites the nude pictures and videos were uploaded and it is only the accused who can say about it and the result is the URL of the websites. So, it appears before this court that as regards the seizure list dt. 29/7/17 (exhibit 18/6) P.W. 6, P.W. 16 and P.W. 18 corroborated with each other. There are independent witnesses and there is nothing in the cross examinations that there was no seizure. Even there is an admission in the cross examination of P.W. 6 when the question was put to P.W. 6 as “You had put your signatures as per the request of the I.O.” and P.W. 6 answered that “I had signed it as a witness”. On perusal of exhibit 18/6 this court finds that the place of seizure was the same which P.W. 6 stated and P.W. 16 was already present there and the witnesses identified the seized articles as per the seizure list. This court further finds from exhibits 42 that P.W. 16 had issued a certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and there is nothing in the cross examination of P.W. 16 that he had not issued the said certificate u/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act. Ld. Special PP referred a citation reported in AIR 1937 Cal 99 38 Cr LJ 818 which states that – “Document can be proved by circumstantial evidence” and argued that the omission to sign in seizure list and in some material exhibits and in Disclosure Memo by Gunasindhu Sahoo (P.W. 16) is not a fatal to the prosecution case in proving those documents as because a document can be proved by circumstantial evidence and in this case this court finds that it is applicable as the documents have been proved by circumstantial evidences. Now, from the order sheet it had been reflected that sealed envelope which P.W. 18 had marked as Exhibit E was sealed with gala which the I.O. had send to C.F.S.L. and later on C.F.S.L. sent the said to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court is properly opened. Moreover, on opening in case where Exhibit E was written another envelope was present inside it in sealed condition with Gala written government examiner was opened and on opening that envelope a C.D. box in