prosecution. It is settled law that evidence of a hostile witness also can be relied upon to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version. Evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off the record. It remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base his conviction upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence (Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana [(1976) 1 SCC 389] and Sat Paul v. Delhi Admn. [(1976) 1 SCC 727]. In the present case, apart from the evidence of PW 7, the prosecution version that he saw that the appellant was having a knife in his hand and was quarrelling with the deceased gets corroboration from the evidence of PWs 11 and 12 to whom he disclosed the incident immediately. On the basis of the said information, within one hour, FIR was lodged disclosing the name of the appellant as the person who had inflicted the knife-blow. A number of incised wounds are found as per the post-mortem report. The prosecution version gets further corroboration from discovery of Muddamal knife containing human blood Group ‘A’. Further the bush shirt and banian which were put on by the accused at the time of incident were having extensive bloodstains which were also found containing human blood Group ‘A’. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the accused is also having Blood Group ‘A’ and that he was having injury on the thigh as per the evidence of the doctor. In our view, there is no substance in his contention because as per the medical evidence, the injuries caused to the accused were minor and that because of such injuries, there would not be extensive bloodstains on the bush shirt and banian put on by the accused. In his Section 313 statement also, the accused has not explained how he got bloodstains on his bush shirt and banian. He has also not denied the recovery of the said bush shirt and banian from his person at the time of his arrest.”
