It is settled principle of law that benefit of reasonable doubt is required to be given to the accused only if the reasonable doubt emerges out from the evidence on record. Merely for the reason that the witnesses have turned hostile in their cross-examination the testimony in examination-in- chief cannot be outright discarded provided the same (statement in examination-in-chief supporting prosecution) is corroborated from the other evidence on record. In other words if the court finds from the two different statements made by the same accused only one of the two is believable and what has been stated in the cross-examination is false even if the witnesses have turned hostile the conviction can be recorded believing the testimony given by such witnesses in the examination-in-chief. However such evidence is required to be examined with great caution.