The court emphasized the importance of examining evidence with care in cases involving enmity between parties, but cautioned against making corroboration a fetish and disregarding believable evidence simply because it comes from an interested source.

1. This appeal by special leave takes exception to the acquittal of the first four respondents, who were arraigned before the J.M.F.C. at Wai for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Ss.323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Penal Code.

2. The complaint moved by the appellant was to the effect that his family owned a piece of agricultural land in Village Kavathe, Taluka Wai, District Satara. This land as also that owned by respondents 1 to 4 received water for irrigating crops from Hanmant Dam. The right to irrigate the lands from the said dam was regulated by turns. On 17-12-1978 it was the turn of complainant's family to take water from the dam. While the watering of the standing crop was in progress, which was being supervised by the complainant, his father Jagannath and grand-father Waman, they found a blockade in the flow of water. Thereupon, the complainant went with his grand-father to verify what had happened. They had taken a lantern with them. Going up the channel, they noticed a breach in it whereby the flow was diverted towards the land of the accused. All the accused were present and engaged in the diversion of the water flow. When the complainant protested, the accused abused and gave him a beating. He, his grand-father and his father Jagannath who came later were all beaten. On his part, accused 1 struck him on the head with a pickaxe. But for the intervention of people present on the spot, the victims would have been dealt with more severely. A report of the occurrence was given at the Bhuinj outpost. The wounded persons were sent to Dr. Joshi for examination and treatment. On the person of the complainant, he found three contused lacerated wounds, caused probably by means of a hard and blunt substance. The complainant was admitted as an in-door patient from 17-12-1978 and discharged on 22-12-1978. Waman except for a slight tenderness on the chest had no visible injuries. The police declined to take action holding that a non-cognizable offence had been committed. For that reason, the appellant lodged a complaint in the Court of J.M.F.C., Wai. Cognizance was taken as desired by the complainant under Ss.323, 504 and 506 read with S.34 of the Penal Code. Accused pleaded not guilty - their defence being that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. Nothing of the nature alleged by the prosecution had taken place. They were innocent and deserved an acquittal. Complainant examined himself, his father, grand-father, uncle, the Medical Officer and the Police Officer who had reduced to writing the report given by complainants uncle Shivaji. The Magistrate held that no independent witnesses had been examined, that there were discrepancies in the accounts given by the witnesses and that having regard to the animosity that existed between the parties it was dangerous to record a conviction. For that reason, he acquitted the accused and that has given rise to the present appeal.

3. The only point for determination is whether the complainant had proved the commission of any offence against any of the accused ? I hold that the charge under S.323, I.P.C. had been established, but only as against respondent 1. My reasons for so holding are given below.

4. Before proceeding to a consideration of the testimony of the witnesses examined let me make it clear that the enmity between the two sides was deep and bitter. That makes it all the more necessary that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is examined with care. However, the need for corroboration should not be made into a fetish and to such an extent as to disbelieve the evident and obvious. In the present case, complainants version in relation to the injuries sustained on his head by him at the hands of respondent 1 is corroborated by the report lodged at the police outpost by Shivaji and also the medical evidence. In the report given by Shivaji at Ex. 25 there is a clear reference to respondent 1 striking the complainant on the head with a