evidence of the informant and PW4. Even if it is assumed that the prosecution can be given the benefit of the date of the incident, the moot question is with regard to the proof of the incident. In her evidence, PW4 has stated that on the date of the incident, there was a monthly meeting of the Gram Panchayat. The applicant, she herself, and other members with Village Development Officer (PW1) were present. She has stated that in her presence the applicant made demand of the money of drainage construction work. She has stated that when PW1 told the accused to contact him on the next day, the applicant assaulted and extended threats to the informant. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that the applicant instigates the villagers to make complaints against her on account of her non-performance of duties as Sarpanch. She has further admitted that on the next day of the incident she had accompanied the Village Development Officer to the Ballarshah Police Station for lodging the report. She has further admitted that in the Gram Panchayat monthly meeting, the dispute takes place between the members and Sarpanch. In my view, the perusal of her cross-examination and cross-examination of her husband (PW3) would show that the applicant used to make complaints against them. Their cross-examinations would fortify that they have no
