(52) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) the contention that the testimony of I.O was unsupported or uncorroborated. 87/­ Hence in the light of said ratios laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Bombay High Court, had also considered the recovery effected at the instance of accused, even though the panchas turned hostile. 88/­ In the light of said ratios laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, and if those are applied to the facts of this case, then even though the panch witnesses referred above, have not supported the prosecution on some material particulars, still the evidence of I.O by name P.I. Borse is fully trustworthy and reliable and therefore, I am of the opinion that it can be considered so far as said recoveries are concerned. In the light of these facts, the ratios in the cases regarding said recovery, on which Advocate Shri Mote has placed his reliance cannot be strictly applicable here, which have been mentioned above. 89/­ Now, coming to the evidence of Investigating Officer P.I. Shri Borse, it seems that after API Shri Patare handed over his report, and Pradip Chandaliya to him, he came to know from the information given by accused Pradeep to him, that the mobile purchased by Mansi was given by accused Jawed to him and therefore, he