vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4025 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4025 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4025 OF 2007 Mahadev Bhairav Patil & Ors. ... Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.S.M. Mirajkar for Applicants Mrs.A.A. Mane, APP, for Respondent-State CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 24, 2008 APRIL 24, 2008 APRIL 24, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The applicants are the accused in RCC No.87 of 2002. The JMFC, Kagal declared one of the prosecution witnesses hostile on an application made by the prosecution. The applicants take exception to this order by contending that no reasons have been stated in the order as to why it was necessary to declare the witness hostile. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Dinkar Sukhdeo Dambale vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 342 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 342 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 342 wherein it is held that the Court while declaring the witness hostile must distinguish whether the statement made by the witness is made by way of an unfriendly act or is one which lets out the truth without any hostile intention. 2. While scanning the evidence, the Sessions Court : 2 : has observed that since the evidence in the examination in chief was tending towards hostility to the prosecution, it was necessary to declare the witness hostile. The learned advocate for the applicants then submits that the applicants would be prejudiced if this witness is declared hostile as certain admissions which have been brought on record through cross-examination would have to be discarded. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Rabindra Kumar Dey v/s. State of Orissa, 1976 SCC (Cri) 566. 1976 SCC (Cri) 566. 1976 SCC (Cri) 566. The Supreme Court has observed while dealing with this case that the entire evidence of a hostile witness need not be discarded. This judgment in no way advances the cause of the applicants. 3. The JMFC, Kagal has found that the deposition which was recorded before him indicated that the witness was hostile to the cause of the prosecution and has, therefore, granted permission to the prosecution for cross-examining its own witness. In these circumstances, the application is rejected.