(59) S.C.No.463/2009 (Judgment) noticed by the Chemical Analyzer. This fact categorically proves the presence of accused Jawed at the house of Mansi on the date of incident. So far as this recovery is concerned, certainly the cross examination of P.I. Shri Borse was conducted by Advocate Shri Mote, on behalf of accused No.1. But only suggestions denying the said recovery of clothes at the instance of accused Jawed were given to him and except said denial, nothing has been brought on record so as to disbelieve the evidence of P.I.Shri Borse. 97/­ So, under such circumstance, even though the panchas on these recoveries have not supported the prosecution on some material particulars, still the evidence of I.O. Shri Borse is sufficient enough to hold the said recovery of clothes at the instance of accused Javed to be genuine one. In this regard, again ratio in the case of “Mohd.Aslam Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2001) 9 SCC, 362 (S.C)” says that merely because the panch witnesses turned hostile, evidence of the witness who effected recovery would not be vitiated. Even otherwise the testimony of I.O.Shri Borse is truthful and reliable and hence in the light of the ratio in the case of “Gurjinder Singh v. State of Punjab”, said recovery of clothes at the