Bhagwan Singh Rana vs The State Of Haryana on 30 April, 1976
21. As regards the submission that since this witness Vinay Kumar has not
fully supported the case of prosecution as such no reliance can be placed on his
testimony, this submission is again devoid of merits. It is settled legal proposition
that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely
S.C. No. 81/09 Page 19/46
20
because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him.
The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the
record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is
found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. In State of U.P.Vs.
Ramesh Prasad Misra & Anr. , AIR 1996 SC 2766, Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in
favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close
scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the
prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated in
Balu Sonba Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 543; Gagan
Kanojia & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516; Radha Mohan Singh
@ Lal Saheb & Ors. Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 951; Sarvesh Naraian
Shukla Vs. Daroga Singh & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 320; and Subbu Singh vs.
State (2009) 6 SCC 462 ; Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Haryana, AIR 1976
SC 202; Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 SC 170, Syad
Akbar vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848; Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853 and C. Munniappan & Ors.
Vs. State of Tamilnadu 2010 IX AD (S.C.) 317. Thus, the law can be
summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be
discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can
be used by the prosecution or the defence.