(51) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) facts which had happened before him. Only because he is a Police Officer, his evidence cannot be discarded in the light of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Gurjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 2011,AIR SCW 1382”, since his evidence is truthful and completely reliable. Even in the case of “Nana @ Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004(2) B.Cr.C 638”, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has observed that even though the panch witnesses before whom recovery panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is prepared, turned hostile, it is not a reason to vitiate the recovery effected by Police Officer. In this case, Hon'ble Bombay High Court has referred the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Mohd.Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2001) 9 SCC, 362 (S.C)”, in which the recovery panch witnesses turned hostile and it was argued on behalf of accused that in the light of the hostility of the panch witnesses, the evidence of Police Officer remained unsupported. But the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed that though panch witnesses turned hostile, which happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the person who effected the recovery would not stand vitiated. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not agree with