(76) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) Bombay High Court in the case of “Nana v. State of Maharashtra”, are to be considered. The ratio in the case of “Nana v. State of Maharashtra” says regarding recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. As per this ratio though the panch witnesses do turn hostile, still it is not a reason to vitiate the recovery effected by Police Officer. Similarly, the ratio in the case of “Gurujinder Singh v. State of Punjab” shows that the Police Officer can be a reliable witness if the Court finds him to a truthful person. Similarly, the ratio in the case of “Mohd.Aslam v. State of Maharashtra” says that merely because panch witnesses are hostile, evidence of witness who effected recovery would not be vitiated. 126/­ Hence, if the aforesaid ratios are considered in a proper perspective and if it is considered that the evidence of API Shri Borse is reliable and truthful one, I am of the opinion that, only on the basis of evidence of P.I.Shri Borse, the recovery at the instance of accused Ram Bodkhe is held to be proved beyond doubt. Hence I am of the opinion that the ratios in the cases on which Advocate Shri Barlota, has placed his reliance cannot be strictly applicable to the facts of this case. 127/­ Therefore, the evidence on record categorically discloses that the stolen