JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The Petitioners stand convicted under Sections 143 and 427, Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- on each count, in default to undergo R.I. for one month on each count. 2. Petitioners Braja and Rajiba are brothers of Sadhu (p.w. 2), all three being sons of late Rathi Patra. p.w. 2 sold his one-third share in the ancestral homestead, which was in his possession, to the husband of the complainant in January, 1967 as per ext. 1. After purchasing the same the complainant and her husband amalgamated that portion of the homestead with their own land and house on the adjoining west of the purchased portion. Thereafter a brick wall was constructed close to the Kani fence in the courtyard and the split-bamboo fence inside the house, which were in existence since long appertaining p.w. 2' s portion of the homestead from that of his brothers. Before p.w. 2 sold his portion of the homestead to the complainant?s husband; the accused persons wanted to purchase that portion of the homestead for themselves, but as the complainant?s husband succeeded in purchasing that portion of the homestead, the brothers of p.w. 2 and their supporters and henchmen bore grudge against the complainant and her husband. On 1-5-1967, the date of occurrence, all the accused persons, who are all related to each other, taking advantage of the absence of the complainant?s husband and son from the house, demolished the aforesaid brick wall ?constructed by the complainant and her husband. When the complainant raised protest against the high-handed and illegal action of the accused persons, accused Braja dealt a blow on her head with a brick, as a result of which the complainant sustained some bleeding injuries on her head. By the aforesaid demolition of the brick wall by the accused persons the complainant and her husband sustained a loss of about Rs. 300/-. After the occurrence, the son of the complainant came to know a bout the incident from his mother and he lodged information about the occurrence at the Konark Police -Outpost. But the police ultimately referred the complaint to Court, and hence this complaint case. 3. All the accused persons denied the prosecution allegations against them. Accused Sobani Parida has also taken the plea of alibi. 4. But the police ultimately referred the complaint to Court, and hence this complaint case. 3. All the accused persons denied the prosecution allegations against them. Accused Sobani Parida has also taken the plea of alibi. 4. The trial Court, on an on record, found that the accused appreciation of the evidence persons formed an unlawful assembly with the common object to commit mischief by damaging the brick wall constructed by the complainant, thereby causing a loss of Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- to the complainant. On this finding of fact it held the accused persons guilty under Sections 143, and 427, Indian Penal Code. It also found that accused Braja voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant by means of a brick and so he was guilty of the offence u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. 5. On appeal by the accused persons the Court below, on an elaborate and convincing discussion of the evidence on record, finds that there is no room for doubt that the complainant?s husband, under Ext. 1, purchased the portion of the homestead which was in the possession of Sadhu (p.w. 2); thereafter the complainant, her husband and their children remained in possession of that portion, and a few days before the date of occurrence they had raised a brick wall on that portion of the homestead in order to permanently separate the same from the portion of the homestead belonging to Braja and Rajiba. On further discussion and consideration of the relevant evidence it also finds that on the date of occurrence the accused persons armed with crowbars, spade etc. demolished the said wall, raised by the complainant and her husband. On the aforesaid findings of fact the Court below confirmed the conviction of the Petitioners under Sections 143 and 427, Indian Penal Code, but is reduced the sentence of fine imposed by the trial Court on these two counts. It also acquitted Petitioner Braja of his conviction u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. 6. The aforesaid concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below on which the Petitioners stand convicted under Sections 143 and 427, Indian Penal Code have been arrived at on a cogent and convincing consideration of the relevant evidence on record. Mr. It also acquitted Petitioner Braja of his conviction u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. 6. The aforesaid concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below on which the Petitioners stand convicted under Sections 143 and 427, Indian Penal Code have been arrived at on a cogent and convincing consideration of the relevant evidence on record. Mr. Sahu, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has not been able to show that the said concurrent findings of fact are any way tainted with errors of record and or are manifestly perverse or patently incorrect. On going through the judgments of both the Courts below I am satisfied that the said findings of fact are not liable to be assailed in this revision. 7. Mr. Sahu, however, urges that on the evidence on record it is clearly established that the Petitioners demolished the wall, if at all, in bona fide exercise of their right over the land on which the wall was constructed, and as such they are not liable to be convicted of any offence for their aforesaid act. According to Mr. Sahu, accused Braja and Rajiba, the two brothers of p.w. 2, have right title and interest, or had good reasons to believe that they had such right, over the portion of the homestead sold by p.w. 2 to the complainant?s husband, as a case of partition between the brothers has not been alleged, much less proved in this case. It is also submitted that accused Dhobei Parida having purchased 3/4th share out of the entire homestead belonging to the three brothers and their mother, has also acquired a right to claim his said portion out of the homestead, and so he also was justified in exercising his claim over the portion of land on which the wall was constructed. The other accused persons are close relations of Dhobei Parida and or of accused Braja and Rajiba, and they helped Dhobei, Braja and Rajiba to effectively exercise their bona fide claim over the said homestead. Stating so Mr. Sahu contends that all the accused persons therefore acted in good faith and in exercise of their bona fide claim of right in demolishing the wall in question, and so they are not guilty of any offence. 8. Stating so Mr. Sahu contends that all the accused persons therefore acted in good faith and in exercise of their bona fide claim of right in demolishing the wall in question, and so they are not guilty of any offence. 8. On a perusal of the evidence on record I am satisfied that a case of bona fide claim of right is not made out in favour of the accused persons. The complainant?s husband purchased p.w. 2?s portion of the homestead in January, 1967. Accused Dhobei Parida purchased the other portion of the homestead on 25-4-1967, i.e. after the lapse of more than three months. It is evident from the evidence on record that the portion sold by p.w. 2 was in his exclusive possession since a long time prior to the sale and the complainant and her husband with their children remained in possession of that portion of the homestead soon after they purchased the same. D. w. 2 also has stated that accused Dhobei is possessing three-fourth of the homestead and the complainant is possessing one-fourth of the same from the western side. In his cross-examination he has admitted that accused Dhobei is in possession of the portion of the homestead which he purchased. It is established on the evidence on record that the wall in question was raised a few days prior to the date of occurrence on p.w. 2?s portion of the homestead and the accused persons did not interfere with the construction of the wall when it was being raised at that place, and that the said wall was constructed close to the Kani fence in the courtyard and the split-bamboo fence inside the house, which existed since long and separated the portion of the homestead in exclusive possession of p.w. 2 from that of his brothers. If the accused persons had any objection to the construction of the wall at the place where it was raised, they should have objected to the same right at the time when the construction work was started. It is an undisputed fact that accused Dhobei purchased a portion of the homestead 5 days prior to the date of occurrence. If the accused persons had any objection to the construction of the wall at the place where it was raised, they should have objected to the same right at the time when the construction work was started. It is an undisputed fact that accused Dhobei purchased a portion of the homestead 5 days prior to the date of occurrence. He is a co-villager and he certainly knew that since more than three months before his purchase the complainant?s husband had already purchased and was in possession of the other portion of the homestead, which was in the possession of p.w. 2. Accused Braja and Rajiba knew that the portion occupied by the complainant was long in exclusive possession of p.w. 2, and that portion was separated by the aforesaid Kani and split - bamboo fences. Accused Dhobei, belonging to the same village, must have also known these facts from before, or at least he must have come to know a bout these facts at the time of the negotiation for sale. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances the accused persons were certainly not justified in taking the law into their own hands by suddenly demolishing the said wall, already constructed to their knowledge a few days prior to the occurrence. From the facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the occurrence took place it is evident that the aforesaid act of the accused persons was not done in bona fide exercise of their right, but was done only to create trouble for and cause damage to the complainant and her family members so that they would not be able to peacefully possess the portion of the homestead purchased by them. It appears to me from the evidence and materials on record that the accused persons acted in the manner aforesaid most probably to force the complainant?s family to surrender the portion purchased by them either in favour of Braja and Rajiba or in favour of Dhobei, who later has purchased the other portion of the homestead. 9. The accused persons do not allege, much less make out a case of trespass or encroachment by the complainant. 9. The accused persons do not allege, much less make out a case of trespass or encroachment by the complainant. If there was any dispute regarding the respective shares in or portions of the said homestead, that matter should have b en agitated in the proper forum and should not have been racked up or agitated in the manner it was done after more than three months of the occupation of the complainant of that portion of the homestead and after the lapse of a few days of the construction of the said wall. Thus the action taken by the accused persons, on the facts and the circumstances of this case, cannot at all be justified and their act cannot be considered as one devoid of mens rea. 10. Moreover, the accused persons in their statement in Court instead of asserting a plea of bona fide claim of right, merely deny the occurrence stating that a false case has been instituted against them. One of the Petitioners has also taken the plea of alibi. The defence taken by themselves, instead of supporting weakens the above-mentioned plea advanced by Mr. Sahu. 11. The Single Bench decision reported in Papu v. Damodaran and Ors. AIR 1968 Ker. 126 , cited by Mr. Sahu in support of his above contention, was arrived at on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that particular case which materially differ from the facts and circumstances of the present case. That decision was arrived at in a Criminal Revision filed by p.w. 1 against the order of acquittal passed in a case instituted by the police. The trial Court in that case arrived at the finding of fact that the accused had bona fide dispute regarding the title the possession of p.w. 1 as regards the portion of the property on which the fence was constructed by p.w. 1. Mathew. J. in paragraphs 16 of the said decision also finds that the accused persons disputed the right of p.w. 1 to the property in question and were under the belief that the portion of the property on which the fence was constructed belonged to them and was in their possession. There is nothing in the case to show that the assertion of title and possession was a pretence. There is nothing in the case to show that the assertion of title and possession was a pretence. The learned Judge, in the light of the above facts and on a consideration of several English decisions, has made certain observations of his own elucidating the expression ?claim of right?. Without troubling myself as to whether all the observations and elucidations made therein are sound on principle or not, I accept with approval the rule stated in that decision that a mistake as to title or possession, whether it arises from mistake of law or fact, negatives mens res I am also in respectful agreement with the learned Judge when he holds that ?The only thing necessary is that the mistake must be one which leads the accused to claim that he has a right to act as he does?. The observations of the Privy Council on this point in Bank of New South Wales v. Piper 1897 A.C. 383, referred to in the Kerala decision, is quoted below, as that lays down the correct rule on this point. The absence of mens rea really consists in an honest and reasonable belief entertained by the accused of the existence of facts which, if true, would make the act charged against him innocent. 12. On the facts established in the present case and the circumstances in which the occurrence took place, as stated above, the accused persons could not have entertained any such honest and reasonable belief as laid down in the above extract from the privy council decision, nor was there any room for a bona fide mistake either of fact or of law to pervade the mind of the accused persons on which they can be exonerated of the wanton and high-handed act in which they indulged.? Thus the theory of bona fide claim of right, as understood in legal parlance, cannot be extended in this case. I do not, therefore, find any merit in the above mentioned contention of Mr. Sahu. 13. The impugned judgment is not assailed on any other grounds. I therefore do not find any merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed.