Ramkrushna vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 April, 2007
37. The view that the evidence of the witness who has been called and cross-
examined by the party with the leave of the court, cannot be believed or disbelieved in
part and has to be excluded altogether, is not the correct exposition of law. The courts
may rely upon so much of the testimony which supports the case of the prosecution
and is corroborated by other evidence. It is also now a settled canon of criminal
jurisprudence that the part which has been allowed to be cross-examined can also be
relied upon by the prosecution. These principles have been encompassed in the
judgment of the apex Court in the following cases: (a) Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v.
State of Gujurat, (b) Prithi v. State of Haryana, (c) Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and (d) Ramkrushna v. State of Maharashtra."