JUDGMENT : B.K. Behera, J. - Mr. D.P. Sahu, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has challenged the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate Courts against the Petitioner holding him guilty of the charge of committing lurking house trespass with the intent to commit theft u/s 457 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the evidence of seven witnesses examined for the prosecution and accepting its case that during the night of the 29/30th April, 1976 at about 1.30 a.m., the Petitioner committed the offence of lurking house trespass by entering into the building belonging to Anirudha Bhoi (P.W. 1), used as a human dwelling, in order to commit theft when he was detected inside a room which had been chained from inside and caught red-handed and dispelling the case of the defence that the entry was not for the purpose of commission of theft. The case of the Petitioner was that he was in love with the wife of P.W. 1. Mr. Sahu has submitted that the findings recorded against the Petitioner are unreasonable and perverse calling for interference by this Court in revision, while Mr. Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel has supported the order of conviction. The Petitioner, for his conviction, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. I have been taken through the relevant evidence from the side of the prosecution and the evidence of two witnesses examined on behalf of the defence. 3. It would admit of no doubt from the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 that during the night of the incident, the Petitioner was found inside a room of the dwelling house of P.W. 1 when the P.W. 1 and his wife were away from the house, having gone to see 'Pala'. There was, however, no evidence to show that the Petitioner was aware of the fact that the wife of P.W. 1 was absent from the house at the relevant time. In order to falsely show that the Petitioner's intention was to commit theft, two inmates of the house, namely, Anirudha (P.W. 1) and his mother Saibani (P.W. 3), introduced a theory that a hole had been made on the wall which would allow a person to enter inside. In order to falsely show that the Petitioner's intention was to commit theft, two inmates of the house, namely, Anirudha (P.W. 1) and his mother Saibani (P.W. 3), introduced a theory that a hole had been made on the wall which would allow a person to enter inside. The other witnesses, namely, Sudan Sahara (P.W. 2), Sugriva Nagi (P.W. 4) and Jadunandan Barik (P.W. 5) had not spoken a word about it. Neither of the two Investigating Officers (P.Ws. 6 and 7) had testified a bout it except for the fact that P.W. 6 had answered to a Court question by saying that he had noticed a space in between the wall and roof of the room where the incident had taken place. This, however, would not give an indication, as sought to be shown by P.W. 1, that some bricks of the wall of the room adjoining the courtyard had been opened. Undoubtedly, the Petitioner had not been armed and he had no house-breaking instrument with him. No incriminating article had been recovered from his person or possession. As the evidence would show, his father was the Sarpanch of the locality and it could not be said that he was a man of no means. There had been strained relationship between P.W. 1 and some other persons on the one hand and the father of the Petitioner on the other owing to the election to the office of the Sarpanch, but the evidence would undoubtedly show and it had been admitted by P.W. 1 himself that the Petitioner, aged about 20 years, had at times been visiting his house. Although P.Ws. 1 and 3 wanted to bolster up an accusation against the Petitioner that his intention was to commit theft of utensils and their evidence was that utensils were lying scattered, this had not been deposed to by any of the other witnesses and none of the Investigating Officers had testified that utensils were found removed or lying scattered. 4. P.W. 4 had blurted out a statement unsupported by any other evidence that to his query, the Petitioner told him that he had entered the room to commit theft. 4. P.W. 4 had blurted out a statement unsupported by any other evidence that to his query, the Petitioner told him that he had entered the room to commit theft. None of the other co-villagers of P.W. 1 had testified about it and while recording the statement of the Petitioner u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his attention had not been drawn to this, I am inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the evidence of P.W. 4 with regard to the extra-judicial confession could not be accepted. 5. How and under what circumstances, the Petitioner had been able to enter into the house was a mystery which had not been unearthed by the investigating agency and the facts evidence and circumstances of the case would undoubtedly lead one to the only reasonable conclusion that the intention of the Petitioner in entering into the dwelling house of P.W. 1 could be anything other than the commission of theft for which he stood charged. 6. D.W. 1, a ward member, had testified about the factions and groups in the village and according to him, no incident, as alleged by the prosecution, had taken place. Besides speaking about the faction s in the village, D.W. 2 had testified that the Petitioner used to come to the residence of P.W. 1 frequently. It would clearly appear from the evidence that the prosecution had not presented a true and real picture of the incident and the Petitioner could not legally and properly be convicted u/s 457 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. As has been laid down in the case of Sankarsan Boral Vs. The State in a case of this nature and on the proved facts, no order of conviction can be recorded against the Petitioner u/s 456 of the Indian Penal Code. To sustain a charge u/s 456 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court must, on the facts found, come to a definite inference as to what was the particular intention with which the entry was effected. Where it is difficult to hold that the entry was effected with the intention of committing any offence, as in the instant case, a Court would not be justified in conjecturing as to what the intention might have been. Where it is difficult to hold that the entry was effected with the intention of committing any offence, as in the instant case, a Court would not be justified in conjecturing as to what the intention might have been. Similarly, a Court would not be justified in saying that any entry into another man's house at such an hour in the night must necessarily cause annoyance to the inmates of the house and consequently the entry was effected with the intention of annoying the inmates thereof. There is a sharp distinction between 'intention' and 'knowledge' and if it appears that the intention with which the entry was effected as quite different, even though the accused knows that his presence, if detected, would cause annoyance to the inmates, he cannot be held gutty of having entered another man's house with the intention of causing annoyance to the inmates. The very fact that the Petitioner took care to conceal his presence in a room which had been chained from inside would indicate that he had no intention to annoy the inmates. 8. In the result, I would allow the revision and set aside the older of conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner. Final Result : Allowed