MEHTA, J.—On June 16, 1966, the complainant Ratnas cow entered the house of the accused Johri at about noon. This led to altercations between Ratna and Johri. The accused Kishanlal and Rewaria sided Johri. The accused Johri is said to have thrown a stone towards Ratna. The stone accidentally fell on Ratnas calf tethered nearby as a result of which it sustained an injury on its nosal region and died soonafter. A report of this incident was made at the police station Rajgarh, district Alwar. The police investigated the matter and put up a challan against the accused Johri, Kishna and Rewaria for offences under Secs. 429, 448 and 323 I.P.C. in the court of the Munsif Magistrate, Rajgarh (Alwar). The prosecution examined six witnesses, including P.W. 5, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Dr. Parmeshwar Sahai. The accused denied to have committed the offence in their statements recorded under sec. 342, Cr.P.C. They did not produce any evidence in their defence. The trial court by its judgment dated January 29, 1968, acquitted the accused Kishanlal and Rewaria of all the charges. He also acquitted Johri for offences under sccs.448 and 323 I.P.C. He, however, convicted Johri under sec.429, I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. An appeal was taken against that judgment by the accused Johri in the court of Sessions Judge, Alwar. The appellate court by its judgment, dated May 9, 1968, partially accepted the appeal and, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under sec. 429, I.P.C., reduced the substantive sentence of two months rigorous imprison-ment to one till the rising of the court and kept the sentence of fine of Rs. 50/- in tact. Hence this revision. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the court below is in direct conflict with the provisions of sec. 429, I.P.C. as the prosecution has failed to bring home intention or knowledge of the accused to commit mischief. 3. In this case from the statement of P.W. 2 Parbhata, P.W. 3 Kanni and P.W. 4 Ratna, it is clear that when Ratnas cow entered Johris house, there were altercations between Ratna and Johari. The cow was driven out by Johari Ratnas calf was also found tethered on Ratnas Chabutari. The calf was untied by Johri. 3. In this case from the statement of P.W. 2 Parbhata, P.W. 3 Kanni and P.W. 4 Ratna, it is clear that when Ratnas cow entered Johris house, there were altercations between Ratna and Johari. The cow was driven out by Johari Ratnas calf was also found tethered on Ratnas Chabutari. The calf was untied by Johri. Ratna objected to this and again tied the animal. Thereupon Johri wanted to pelt stones towards Ratna, but accidentally the stone fell on the calf on its nosal region, resulting in its death. 4. Sec. 429, I.P.C., necessitates three things : (1) intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person (2) causing the destruction of some property or any change in it or in its situation, and (3) such change must destroy or diminish the property mentioned in the section itself. In this case, evidence shows that the calf died as a result of the stone falling upon it accidentally. The question remains whether it should be inferred from the circumstances of the case that the accused had had the intention or konw-ledge of likelihood of causing wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. There is not an iota of evidence on the record from which such an intention or knowledge can be gathered. The only evidence is that the accused wanted to throw stone towards Ratna and not towards the calf with a view to cause wrongful loss or damage to Ratna Since the first and the most important ingredient of the offence under sec. 429 I.P.C. is totally absent, the court below went wrong in holding that sec. 429, I P.G., was applicable to this case. 5. In Arjun Singh vs. The State (1) it has been observed by this Court: "In order to prove an offence of mischief, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused had an intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person." It has further been observed in this case that if an animal is killed accidentally, whatever may be the responsibility of the accused to compensate its owner for the loss of property caused to him in a civil court it cannot be said with any justification that he committed a criminal offence under sec. 429, I. P. G. A Division Bench of the Saurashtra High Court consisting of Shah C. J. and Baxi J. reported as Bhagwan vs. State(2) has held that the offence of mischief under sec. 429 I.P.C., is committed if the offender commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless any buffalo etc. Under sec. 425, I. P. C, a person is said to commit mischief with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss to a person causes the destruction of any property. The existence of the requisite intention or knowledge is therefore an essential ingredient to the offence and the accused cannot he convicted under sec.429 I.P.C. unless it is established that the act of killing etc. was with the requisite intention or knowledge. There is another relevant citation found in criminal revision case No, 434 of 1901 In the matter of Obammal accused (3). In that case the accused Obammal was convicted under sec. 429, I.P.C., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 days. The mischief consisted in throwing a stone at a young buffalo and thereby causing its death. The stone was thrown to drive the animal out of the backyard and the animal after running some distance fell down and died. The prosecution witnesses stated that the accused threw a brick at the buffalo and caused its death. There was, however, nothing to show that the accused had in throwing the stone, any intention to cause injury to the animal or reasonable cause to suppose that loss or damage was likely to be caused. The Madras High Court held that in these circumstances the conviction was wrong. 6. In this case, as has been said above there is nothing to show that the accused had in throwing the stone intention to cause injury to the animal or that he had the knowledge that his act would result in damage to the complainant Ratna. There is also no evidence to suggest what the size of the stone was. The sole intention of accused appears to have been to throw a stone towards Ratna. The stone accidentally fell upon the calf. Under these circumstances, the conviction made by the court below was bad in law. 7. There is also no evidence to suggest what the size of the stone was. The sole intention of accused appears to have been to throw a stone towards Ratna. The stone accidentally fell upon the calf. Under these circumstances, the conviction made by the court below was bad in law. 7. In the result, the conviction of the accused Johri is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence under sec. 429, I.P.C. The amount of fine, if levied, must be refunded to him.