witnesses it reveals that there was no demand. He submitted that
the evidence of the complainant shows that at the relevant time,
his brother-in-law Sham Kukde was along with him who is not
examined by the prosecution. Thus, as far as the first demand is
concerned, the same is not corroborated. As to the subsequent
demand, the only evidence of the complainant is that the accused
enquired about him whether he arranged the amount and he
handed over the said amount. The evidence of the Shadow Pancha
is not corroborating. Thus, in absence of corroboration, mere
seizure of the amount is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused. Thus, the demand and acceptance is not proved by the
prosecution. He further submitted that as far as the seizure of the
amount is concerned, the same itself is not sufficient to convict the
accused in absence of the demand. Thus, the prosecution failed to
prove the demand as well as the acceptance. He also invited my
attention towards the cross examination and submitted that the
complainant has admitted that at the relevant time, raiding party
was not there. He met raiding party on the way. The cross
examination further shows that the complainant has not paid land
revenue of that year which was demanded and, therefore, the
