v. State of Haryana7, Sri Rabindra Kuamr Dey v. State of Orissa8, Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka9, has held 6 (1991) 3 SCC 627 : 1991 INSC 153 7 (1976) 1 SCC 389 : 1975 INSC 306 8 (1976) 4 SCC 233 : 1976 INSC 204 9 (1980) 1 SCC 30 : 1979 INSC 126 8that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. It was further held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. 10. This Court, in the case of C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu10, has observed thus: “81. It is settled legal proposition that : (Khujji case, SCC p. 635, para 6) ‘6. … the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such