1 AFR HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH INDORE (Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri SK Seth and Hon. Shri M. C. Garg, JJ. ) ____________ Cri. Appeal No. 88 of 1998 Ramdas son of Narayan Sulane ( deceased) ...... his legal representatives :- 1. Smt. Shantibai wd/o Ramdas Sulane aged 42 yrs; occupation house hold; 2. Vijay son of late Ramdas Sulane Appellant aged 30 yrs; occupation service; 3. Mahesh son of late Ramdas Sulane aged 24yrs; occupation labour; all residents of 114-115/10, Pardesipura, Indore. ..... Appellants Versus State of MP through Special Establishment Police Lokayukta, Indore ... Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Mr. Yogesh Purohit, learned counsel for appellants. Mr. LN Soni ,learned Sr. Counsel with Mr. Mukesh Kumawat for respondents Lokayut establishment. _________________________________________________________________ J U D G M E N T (Delivered on this the 22nd day of November, 2011) Per M. C. Garg, J. This appeal has been filed by the deceased appellant Ramdas Sulane (since dead )now represented by his Lrs, under sec. 374 of Cr. P. C. and sec. 27 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 2nd January, 1998 delivered by Special Judge, Indore in Special Case No. 18 of 1991 whereby the appellant has been found guilty of the offence under sec. 7 and 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been sentenced to undergo six months RI with fine of Rs.500/- and one year's RI with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively, in 2 AFR default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months and six months additionally. Both the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. 2. It would be appropriate to take note of the facts in brief. According to the prosecution story, complainant Premnarayan PW-1 is working in Malwa Mill Indore. He wanted four weeks medical leave on account of his illness. He, therefore, met the appellant who was working as LDC in Mill Area Karmachari Rajya Bima Hospital Branch Malwa Mill. It was further alleged by the complainant that during discussions had by the complainant with the appellant, the appellant had asked a sum of Rs.100/- from the complainant that taking out his MRE Card and to get his leave sanctioned. Complainant was also informed that if the amount is not given, then his leave would not be sanctioned. As per complaint, the complainant was not willing to give the bribe and wanted to trap the appellant. He therefore lodged a complaint Ex. P. 1 before Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt. At that time, he was also accompanied with one Rameshchandra. On the basis of complaint Ex. P.1, the Lokayukt establishment carried out all formal proceedings for holding the trap. On 12.1.90 taking into possession of two notes of Rs.50/- given by the complainant to the trap party, for which a panchnama Ex.P.2) was prepared. Thereafter in terms of the complaint laying down the trap. The complainant had gone to the office of appellant where he asked the appellant for his work to be done for sanction of four weeks leave. At this, on asking of the appellant, the complainant handedover two notes of Rs.50/- to him which were kept by the appellant in the left pocket of his pant. Thereafter he asked the complainant to accompany him to the Doctor's room for preparation of medical certificate. While going towards Doctor's room, as per the complainant, stated to have given signal the trap party. The Trap Party, including the Investigating Officer, came to the spot and apprehended the appellant, recovered the same two currency notes of Rs.50/- having the same number which were mentioned in the panchnama Ex. P. 2 and other currency notes were recovered 3 AFR and prepared the seizure memo of the recovered amount. The hand of the appellant washed in a glass, the colour of the water became pink in the solution brought by the trap party. After completing the investigation, the Lokayukta establishment Indore registered the FIR no.6 of 90 against the appellant. Thereafter a charge sheet was filed against the appellant under sec.7 and 13 (i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. we may observe the defence as set up by the appellant was that he never demanded the money and according to the appellant, after taking the card of the complainant when he was going towards Doctor's room, on way, the complainant intentionally and forcibly tried to keep something in his pocket (“ Jabran Thoos Raha tha”) and something fell on the ground which was recovered by the police from the ground. Thus, it was his case that neither he made any demand, nor any amount was recovered from his possession. He has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. 4. The learned Special Judge framed the charges against the appellant. Since the appellant denied the charges levelled against him, the prosecution to prove its case, examined as many as seven witnesses namely; PW-1 Premnarayan, PW-2 Rameshchandra, PW-3 Dr. Dilip Kumar Bhand, PW-4 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, PW5 Sunita Naik, PW6- Hariprasad Malviya and PW7 Chotelal Raj, Investigating Officer. No evidence was led in defence. 5. After concluding the Trial, the learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty for commission of the offence under sec. 7 & 13 (i)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted him as described in para 1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant (deceased) has filed this appeal. After the death of appellant his Lrs have now represented the appellant. 4 AFR 6. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence delivered by learned Special Judge on the grounds that prosecution has failed to prove any demand, offer and acceptance of the alleged bribe made by the appellant from the complainant. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record to show that appellant ever demanded any amount from the complainant, infact, the work in question was to be done by one Raghunath Chouhan, an employee of the hospital and not by the appellant. This fact has also been admitted by the complainant. It is also submitted that mere recovery cannot prove the prosecution case. Further the sanction of prosecution granted was awarded by an authority who was not competent to grant the sanction of prosecution. 7. It has also been submitted that the entire judgment of the Trial Court is based on the testimony of hostile witnesses which includes complainant also. It is submitted that the amount which is said to have been recovered from the ground was tried to be kept in the pocket of the appellant forcibly. It is thus submitted that taking into consideration all these facts, the findings of conviction recorded by the Special Judge, cannot be sustained and must be set aside. Consequently, the appellant must be clear of the charges levelled against him. 8. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent submitted that in this case, the complainant has fully supported the prosecution case, in asmuch as he has admitted that he made a complaint Ex. P. 1. He also deposed that the currency notes which were particularised in the panchnama Ex. P. 2 as was prepared at the time of undergoing pre-trap proceedings, were recovered from the possession of appellant. The prosecution story as narrated by the complainant in Ex. P.1 was also corroborated by other witnesses, may be in parts, but the effect of the total evidence which has come on record fully establishes that the complaint 5 AFR made by the complainant Ex. P. 1 was correct and that the currency notes given to the complainant during trap proceedings were the same currency notes recovered from possession of the appellant and thus finding recorded by the Special Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. Learned Government Advocate prayed that the appeal of the appellant which now represented by Lrs deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. We have also scrutinized the entire evidence and find that the grounds taken by the appellant/s to come out of the impugned judgment are not sufficient to reverse the finding of conviction arrived at by the Trial Court, in asmuch as, if we start with the evidence of complainant Premnarayan PW-1, we find that few facts are not disputed (i) that complainant knew the appellant, who was working in Malwa Mill Rajya Bima Hospital at the relevant point of time and that (ii) the complainant was working as a checker in Malwa Mill Folding no.2; (iii) that the complainant wanted medical leave for four weeks as per his statement made in the court, he initially contacted Raghunath Chouhan( which is an improvement in his statement) but on asking of Raghunath who was going on leave, he met the appellant on an assurance that the appellant would carry out the work of the appellant. The statement of the complainant to the effect that it was the suggestion of Raghunath that he should pay the amount to the appellant, is again an improvement in his statement. But even this twisted statement affirms his allegation made in his complaint that he had to pay the money ( illegal gratification) to the appellant for the purpose of getting four weeks sanctioned leave, to that extent the story is in accordance with the complaint Ex. P. 1 that at the relevant time he accompanied by one Bhudeo Sharma, may be an improvement in his statement, but, his further statement that at the time he had a discussion with 6 AFR Raghunath chouhan, the appellant was also there, further corroborates his version in Ex.P.1. The same is reproduced hereunder:- 11- 1- 1990 Jheku iqfyl vf/k{kd egksn; yksdk;qDr dk;kZy; bUnkSj fo"k; %& Jh jkenkl lqykus ,y- Mh- lh- fey ,fj;k deZpkjh jkT; chek fuxe 'kk[kk ekyok fey bUnkSj }kjk esfMdy vodk'k fnykus gsrq 100 :i;s (lkS :i;s) dh fj'or fnykus gsrq 100@&:- dh fj'or dh ekWax ckcr A egksn;] fuosnu gS fd eS izkFkhZ izseukjk;.k S/o ekuflag oekZ 431 ikVuhiqjk bUnkSj fuoklh dh izkFkZuk bl izdkj gS fd eS bUnkSj ekyok ;qukbVsM fey bUnkSj esa QksfYMax ua 2 U;w fey fnu ikyh esa dk;Zjr gWaw A eq>s ?kj ij vko';d dk;Z rFkk esjk LokLF; Bhd ugha gksus ds dkj.k pkj lIrkg dk esfMdy vodk'k ysuk gS A eSa vkt lqcg fMLisUljh ekyok fey ij x;k Fkk rks EkSus jkenkl lqykus ckcw ls ckrphr dh rks mUgksaus eq>s dgk fd ;nh rqe 100@& :- (lkS :i;s) eq>s nksxs rks eS rqEgkjk ,e- vkj- bZ dkMZ fudky dj rqEgkjh NqVVh eUtwj djok nwaxk A vkSj ;fn :i;s ugha nksxs rks eSa rqEgkjh esfMdy NqVVh eUtwj ugha djkmaxk A eSus dgk fd vki dsoy dkMZ fudyokus rFkk NqVVh eUtwj djkus ds iSls ysrs gks ;g xyr ckr gS rks og cksyk fd ;gkWa cxSj iSls ds dksbZ dk;Z ugha gksrk gS A eSa Jh jkenkl lqykus dks fj'or ds 100@& :- (lkS :i;s) nsuk ugha pkgrk gWaw cfYd mUgsa jaxs gkFkksa idM+okuk pkgrk gWwa A esjk jkenkl ls :i;s iSls dk dksbZ ysu nsu ugha gS vkSj uk gh vkil esa dksbZ yM+kbZ >xM+k gS A fj'or eS nsus gsrq 100@& :i;s (lkS :i;s) lkFk yk;k gWaw tks is'k djrk gWaw dk;Zokgh dh tkos A mijksDr ckr eSus vius nksLr jes'k pUnz S/o jkedY;k.k 'kekZ fuoklh U;w nsokl jksM+ (ekyok fey vukt eaMhs) bUnkSj dks crkbZ gS o fjiksVZ djus eSa mUgha ds lkFk vk;k gWaw A izkFkhZ lgh@ izseukjk;.k oekZ 431] ikVuhiqjk] ekyok fey] bUnkSj 11. It is quite possible that the complainant wonover by the appellant, but, his statement to the extent that since Raghunath was going on leave and in his place it was the appellant who would carry out his work and that he was to pay illegal gratification to the appellant, is in accordance with the averment made by him in his complaint Ex. P.1. He admits having made such complaint in his deposition which bears his signatures at A to A. 12. The complainant Premnarayan (PW-1) in his deposition also talks about the proceedings which took place on the next day in Lokayukta office. He stated that he was accompanied by Bhudeo Sharma. The name of Rameshchandra 7 AFR Sharma was also mentioned. He talks about the formal proceedings taken in the Lokayukta office regarding preparation of sodium corbonate solution and other relevant proceedings. He also deposed that when he went to the Hospital along with Raiding Party and met appellant Ramdas Sulane, he had inquired about Raghunath who had gone on leave. At that time he also gave his Card to the appellant and thereafter appellant took out his MRE Card. It is important to take note of further deposition of the complainant regarding the talks which he had with the appellant when the appellant specifically asked him about bringing of money as per the earlier discussion. On this, he stated that he brought the money and that he haded over two notes of Rs.50/- each. Thereafter he gave the desired signal and then members of Trap Party came there. At that time, hand of the appellant became pink after the same was duped in the solution brought by the raiding party. For the sake of reference, para-2 & 3 of the statement made by complainant is reproduced hereunder :- 2@ mlds ckn ge yksx chek vLirky x;s FksA chek vLirky tkdj jkenkl lqykus ls eSaus iwNk fd j?kqukFk pkSgku dgka gS rks mlus dgk fd og rks NqV~Vh x;k gSA fQj eSaus vfHk;qDr dks viuk dkMZ fn;k rks fQj esjh ,e-vkj- vkbZ mlus fudkyhA vkSj vfHk;qDr us cksyk fd vkidh tks ckrphr gqbZ Fkh mlds :i;s yk;s gks ;k ughaA eSaus dgk fd :i;s eSa yk;k gawA fQj eSaus vfHk;qDr dks nks ipkl ipkl ds uksV viuh tsc ls fudkydj fn;sA eq>s foftysUl vf/kdkfj;ksa us dgk Fkk fd tc vki vfHk;qDr dks iSls ns nks rks vius flj ij gkFk ? kqekuk rks eSaus iSls nsus ds ckn flj ij gkFk ?kqekdj b'kkjk fd;kA esjs ihNs vkfQlj yksx Fks mUgksaus iSls nsus ds ckn ,sls ds ,sls dh dqlhZ ds ihNs ls gkFk Mkydj mls mBk fy;k vkSj vfHk;qDr dks HkkaM lkgc okys dejs esa oSls gh idM+dj ys x;sA fQj HkkaM lkgc ds dejs esa vLirky ds cjru esa gksn esa ls ikuh fy;k vkSj vfHk;qDr ds gkFk /kqyok;s rks mlds gkFk ls xqykch dyj fudykA vfHk;qDr ds gkFk /kqyokus ds ckn mls ?kksy dks ,s 'kh'kh esa Hkj fy;kA ,d vf/kdkjh ds gkFk ?kksy esa /kqyok;s rks ?kksy dk jax lQsn gks x;k Fkk vkSj ml ?kksy dks Hkh 'kh'kh esa Hkjk FkkA fQj vf/kdkfj;ksa us vfHk;qDr dh tsc dh ryk'kh yh xbZ Fkh rks mldh tsc ls vkB lkS :i;s ;k lk<+s vkB lkS :i;s fudys FksA ogka fy[kki<+h dh Fkh ftlesa nks <kbZ ?k.Vs yxs FksA ogka ij eq>ls nks rhu dkxtksa ij gLrk{kj djok;s FksA esjs gkFk ugha /kqyok;s FksA mlds ckn os vf/kdkjh yksx vfHk;qDr dks xkM+h esa Mkydj u tkus dgka ys x;s Fks vkSj gels dgk Fkk fd vc rqe tkvks ge cqyok;s rc vk tkukA eSaus tks uksV vfHk;qDr dks fn;s Fks og lkgc yksxksa us jkenkl lqykus ls tIr fd;s FksA 3@ vfHk;qDr ls dkxtkr Hkh tIr fd;s Fks ysfdu dkSu ls dkxtkr tIr fd;s Fks eq>s ugha irkA Vªsi esa tkus ls igys yksdk;qDr dk;kZy; esa flikgh ds gkFk /kqyok;s Fks rks ?kksy dk jax xqykch gks x;k Fkk vkSj mldks Hkh 'kh'kh esa Hkjk FkkA yksdk;qDr dk;kZy; esa eq>ls iwNk Fkk fd :i;s yk;s gks D;k rks eSaus :i;s fudkydj lkgc dks fn;s FksA ml ij ikoMj yxok;k x;k FkkA og uksV esjs dqrsZ dh tsc esa j[k fn;s x;s Fks vkSj dgk fd bu uksVksa dks gkFk esa er yxkukA tc :i;s nks rHkh gkFk Mkydj :i;s fudkydj 8 AFR ns nsukA yksdk;qDr dk;kZy; esa chek vLirky tkus ls igys fy[kki<+h gqbZ FkhA izkjafHkd iapukek izn'kZ ih & 2 cuk;k Fkk ftl ij izR;sd i`"B ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSa vkSj tks N% i`"Bksa esa cuk FkkA vkVhZdy , 'kh'kh ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA vkVhZdy ¼n½ ij ,s ls ,s Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSa foKIr vf/kdkjh ds gkFk dk ? kksy vkVhZdy c ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSa vkVhZdy ?k] Qfj;knh ds gkFk dk ?kksy ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA vkVhZdy c vkSj l ¼iqfM+;k½ ij Hkh , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA vkVhZdy c vkSj l dh iqfM+;k dgka ij cukbZ Fkh ;g eq>s ugha ekywe D;ksafd iqfM+;k vkfQl esa Hkh cukbZ Fkh vkSj vLirky esa Hkh cukbZ FkhA uksV vkVhZdy ?k&1 ,oa ?k&2 ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA vkVhZdy p fyQkQk ftlesa uksV j[ksa gq, Fks] ij , ls , Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSaA” 13. Thus the aforesaid deposition of complainant Premnarayan PW-1 corroborates the complaint Ex. P.1 to the extent that there was a demand of Rs.100/- by the appellant Ramdas from the complainant for the purpose of getting medical leave sanctioned for four weeks which was the purpose for which complainant initially contacted Raghunath chouhan, though modified, but later on, met the appellant and paid a sum of Rs.100/- as illegal gratification which has been recovered from the appellant. 14. The next witness PW-2 Rameshchandra also supports the prosecution case to the extent that he had gone to the office of Lokayukta ( Vigilance Department) alongwith the complainant, where the complaint was made which was signed by him. His statement also corroborates the proceedings which took place on the second day where two currency notes of Rs.50/- each were given by the complainant to the office of Lokayukta; treatment of those notes were done with sodium corbonate solution. The evidence of PW-2 further corroborates the version of complainant to the extent that those two notes were found lying on the ground which were recovered where the appellant was apprehended. It is true that the statement of Premnarayan to the extent that the notes were found lying on the ground, is an improvement in his statement. But the fact remains that he was not an eye-witness of trap but corroborates the prosecution case that a complaint was made and a trap was laid and thereafter recovery was effected. 9 AFR 15. Dr. Dilip Kumar Bhand PW- 3 also supports the prosecution case to the extent that some currency notes were recovered from the pocket of appellant, though he was not sure from which pocket of his pant the notes were recovered. According to PW-4 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, the money recovered from the pant of appellant includes two notes which bearing the same numbers mentioned in the panchnama. 16. Sunita Naik (PW-5) is a formal witness who proved the signature of Smt. Shailja Johari, who had granted sanction of the prosecution of the appellant. 17. Hariprasad Malviya PW-6, a member of raiding party has also corroborated the prosecution story that the hands of the appellant were washed in sodium corbonate solution which turned pink when dipped in the solution. PW.7 Chhotelal Raj, the Investigating Officer, he may be interested in success of prosecution case, but taking into consideration the entire evidence which has come on record including the evidence of complainant who may be a partly hostile witness, have been rightly relied upon by the Special Judge in arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that appellant had made a demand and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.100/- which was recovered from possession of the appellant. The learned Special Judge has considered all these aspects and discussed the evidence in detail. There is substance in the observations made by the Special Judge that PW-3 Dr. Dilip Kumar Bhand and PW-4 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar who are independent witnesses and their statements corroborates the prosecution story. There is nothing on record to show that they had any enmity with the appellant which goes to prove that after the raid, recovery of tainted money was made from possession of the appellant. 18. After appreciating the evidence on record, we come to the inescapable conclusion that the testimony of PW-1;PW-3 and PW-4 coupled with complaint Ex. P. 1, the learned Special 10 AFR Judge has rightly observed that it was a case where the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The ground raised about the sanction being not proper as not given by the competent authority has also been discussed in para 21 of the impugned judgment which is reproduced hereunder:- “vU; lk{kh ¼v-lk-5½ lquhrk ukbZd fuEu Js.kh fyfid gS tks izLrqr izdj.k ds laca/k esa vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr izn'kZ ih-18 ds lac/k esa dFku djrs gq;s dgrh gS fd uoEcj 90 esa LFkkiuk 'kk[kk lapkyuky; deZpkjh jkT; chek lsok;sa bankSj esa fuEu Js.kh fyfid ds in ij inLFk Fkh ml le; Mk- 'kSytk vkSgjh muds ;gka lapkyd Fkh rc vkjksih ds laca/k esa fj'or ds ckcn dksbZ i= vk;k FkkA ftl ij ls eSMe vkSgjh us izn'kZ ih-18 dh vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr nh Fkh ftl ij muds , Vq , gLrk{kj gSaA muds gLrk{kj o fy[kkoV og igpkurh gSA eSMe vkSgjh lsokfuo`Rr gks pqdh gSaA bl lk{kh ls ,slk dksbZ izfrijh{k.k ugha fd;k x;k gS ftlls fd vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr dks nks"kiw.kZ dgk tk ldsA gkaykfd rdZ ds nkSjku vkjksih dh vksj ls ml ij vkifRr mBk;h tkdj rdZ fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr fof/klaxr ugha gSA vr,o vfHk;kstu iw.kZr% 'kwU; gksdj vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA bl laca/k esa mudh vksj ls nkf.Md vihy dzekad 176@81 fu.kZ; fnukad 16-10-85 dh Nk;kizfr is'k dh x;h gSA ;g lgh gS fd vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr fof/kor izekf.kr djus dk nkf;Ro vfHk;kstu dk gS ijUrq vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr dk dksbZ fuf'pr izk:i fu/kkZfjr ugha gS dksbZ fof'k"V vkns'k ml laca/k esa vko';d ugha gS rFkk vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr dk vkns'k /kkjk 74 lk{; vf/kfu;e ds rgr yksd nLrkost dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS ,oa mlds vkSipkfjd lcwi dh vko';drk ugha gksrh gSA fQj Hkh vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls bl laca/k esa vlk 5 lqfurk ukbZd ds dFku djk;s gSa tks fd vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr izn'kZ ih-18 ij vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr nsus okys vf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj izekf.kr djrh gS ,oa gLrk{kjdrkZ vf/kdjh fjVk;j gks pqdk gSA ,slh voLFkk esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr izn'kZ ih-18 =qfViw.kZ gksdj nks"kiw.kZ gSA tcfd izn'kZ ih-18 ls ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr dk vkns'k lEiw.kZ rF;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s foLr`r :i ls fopkj mijkar fd;k x;k gSA vkjksih }kjk ;g dgha n'kkZ;k ugha x;k gS fd vfHk;kstu dh vuqefr nsus okyh l{ke vf/kdkjh ugha Fkh ,oa mUgksaus fcuk vius foosd fd;s ;kaf=d :i ls vuqefr iznku dj nh gSA oSls Hkh bl izdkj dh vkifRr Hkh izdj.k ds izkjafHkd izdze ij mBk;h tkuh pkfg;s vU;Fkk ml ij fopkj laHko ugha gSA gkaykfd izLrqr izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr esa dksbZ nks"k ;k voS/kkfudrk nf'kZr ugha gksrh og fof/klaxr gS ,oa fof/kor izekf.kr gSA Qyr% bl laca/k esa vkjksih dh vkifRr fopkj ;ksX; ,oa Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha ik;h tkrh gSA 19. It is well settled that evidence of hostile witnesse/s also to the extent which corroborates the prosecution version can be relied upon. This has been so held in the case of Balram Prasad Agrawal v State of Bihar ( 1997) 9 SCC 338 ). The relevant discussion appeared in para 11 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “11. We now proceed to narrate these circumstances. It is now well settled that even evidence of hostile witness also to the extent it corroborates the prosecution version can be relied upon ( Khujji v State of MP and St Paul v delhi Admn). Witness Laxmi Mahto, PW.3 in his chief examination 11 AFR before the court stated that he heard in the night of the incident sound of quarrelling from the house of Paran Prasad Agrawal ( accused-husband of the deceased). A fight was going on inside the house and the said hullah was of the same. At around 1.00-1.30 am