JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner has been convicted u/s 4 26, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 50/- in default to undergo Section 1. for one month. 2. Petitioner?s case may be stated in short. The house of the complainant (p.w. 1) is a thatched one with tiled roof resting on Bamboo beams. Her thatched roof over-hanged to the extent of 1 1/2 cubits from her western side wall on the land of the Petitioner and water from the thatched house of the complainant was falling on the land of the accused since long. At about 10 a.m. on 12th February, 1972 the Petitioner forcibly cut the thatch of the complainant. The dimension of the cutting was 6 cubits in length and 6 cubits in breadth. P.w. 1 complained that by the cutting she sustained a loss of about Rs. 60/- and the (sic) portion of her house became exposed to rains. The defence was one of complete denial. 3. On behalf of the complainant (p.w. 1) three other witnesses p.ws. 2 to 4 were examined. All of them are independent witnesses and they supported her version that her thatch was extending towards the land of the Petitioner long since. P.w. 1 herself stated that the thatch was there since time immemorial. This assertion of p.w. 1 supported by the other witnesses was not assailed in cross - examination. The learned Magistrate on assessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that the thatch which existed long since was cut by the Petitioner on the date of occurrence to construct a new wall of his and this thatch extended over the Petitioner?s land and water from the thatch was falling on the land of the Petitioner long since. 4. The aforesaid findings of the learned Magistrate were not assailed before me. After having gone through the entire evidence and having heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate reached the correct conclusion and the findings are unassailable. 5. Mr. Biswal, however, seriously contended that the Petitioner cut the thatch in exercise of a bona fide claim of right. He had no mens rea and he is entitled to an acquittal. 6. Section 425, Indian Penal Code defines the offence of mischief. 5. Mr. Biswal, however, seriously contended that the Petitioner cut the thatch in exercise of a bona fide claim of right. He had no mens rea and he is entitled to an acquittal. 6. Section 425, Indian Penal Code defines the offence of mischief. So far as relevant it runs thus: Section 425 : Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief. 7. The property in the thatch vested in p.w. 1. When the Petitioner cut the thatch and removed the tiles he caused destruction of the thatch and thereby diminished the value or utility of the thatch. Thus several elements of Section 425 are satisfied by the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate. 8. The only question for consideration is whether the Petitioner caused the damage to the thatch with intent to cause or knowing it is likely to cause such damage. It is here the question of the existence of a bona fide claim of right comes in. Law is well settled that mens rea is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of mischief. If the Petitioner honestly believed in good faith that he had a right to do what he did even if he did not in law have that right, he cannot be said to have had necessary intention or knowledge that he was likely to cause wrongful loss or damage. The claim of the accused should not, however, be a mere pretence or a colourable one but must be one in assertion of a bona fide right. 9. On the finding that the thatch of p.w. 1 existed there for a long time, the assertion of the Petitioner is a mere pretence or a colorable one in cutting it on the ground that it extended over the accused?s land. By long existence of the thatch on the Petitioner?s land, p.w. 1 had acquired certain fights and the Petitioner was in no confusion that he could not take law to his own hands in removing the thatch which existed for a long time. By long existence of the thatch on the Petitioner?s land, p.w. 1 had acquired certain fights and the Petitioner was in no confusion that he could not take law to his own hands in removing the thatch which existed for a long time. On the facts of this case it must, therefore, be held that the Petitioner had necessary mens rea and he caused the damage to the thatch knowing that it is likely to cause wrongful loss to p.w. 1. The offence of mischief is fully made out. 10. Mr. Biswal cited several decisions which have no application to the facts of this case and need not, therefore, be noticed. 11. On the aforesaid analysis, the revision has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. If fine is realised Rs. 35/- be paid by way of compensation to the complainant. Final Result : Dismissed