Judgment :- 1. The complainant in CC 293 of 1984 on the file of the judicial 2nd Class Magistrate's Court, Trichur has come up in appeal challenging the acquittal of six accused persons. 2. The allegations in the complaint were that these accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the property belonging to the complainant on 20-5-1984 at 6.30 p.m. and dismantled the concrete pillars which were erected on the ground for the construction of a building and that they also removed a display board hung in that property. The Court below took cognizance of the offence of mischief and directed the-complainant to adduce evidence. On the side of the complainant three witnesses were examined and two witnesses were examined on the defence side. The court ultimately acquitted the accused. 3. The main grievance of the appellant is that the court below has relied on a decision of this court reported in Pappu v. Damodaran (1967 KLT 918) and acquitted the accused for the reason that there was a civil dispute between the parties and hence there could not have been any offence of mischief. It has been stated in the above quoted decision: So far as the offence of mischief is concerned, a claim of right believed to exist, even though unreasonably, is a valid defence, Therefore the accused bad a claim of right to the property and possession thereof and whoever might be the owner of the property, the accused were protected as they had no intention to cause wrongful damage in demolishing the fence or knowledge that that would be the result of their act. As the accused were found to have entertained the belief whether reasonable or not that they were the owners of the property and were in possession and that Pw.1 has no right to construct the fence in the property, their act in demolishing the fence would not constitute the offence of mischief." 4. The above observations were made on the basis of the facts avail-able in that case. This Court in Ouseph Mani v. State of Kerala (1964 KLT 757) bad struck a different note. The Court held that even if the owner of the land has a right to eject the trespasser he has no right to destroy whatever property of the trespasser the owner may find on the land. This Court in Ouseph Mani v. State of Kerala (1964 KLT 757) bad struck a different note. The Court held that even if the owner of the land has a right to eject the trespasser he has no right to destroy whatever property of the trespasser the owner may find on the land. In a case where even though there were bona fide civil disputes between the parties one party taking law into his hands and causing mischief would definitely come within the purview of S.427 IPC. In order to exculpate the accused it is not sufficient merely to assert a claim of right. If it were so, such assertion would be readily made in a case where it is said that the accused is protected if be deals injuriously with the property of another. The question is whether the accused had acted in good faith and as an assertion of the claim of reasonable right over the property. in Ouseph v. State of Kerala (1981 KLT 153) this Court held that the Court has to ascertain as to what was the intention or state of knowledge of the accused and if the accused was asserting his bona fide claim of right there cannot be an offence of mischief as defined in S.425. The true test in such case is whether the accused acted out of malice or in the assertion of bona fide claims of right. 5. In the instant case the learned Magistrate has approached the question that no offence of mischief would come into play if the accused raised the plea that he had claim over the disputed property. That is no justification for the accused to remove the pillar and board from the property which were already erected by the appellant. The learned Magistrate has committed error on this aspect. 6. However, the evidence in this case is not fully satisfactory to prove the offence alleged against the accused. The allegation is that the respondents came in a group and trespassed into the property of the appellant and removed a concrete pillar and a board. Apart from the interested testimony of the complainant there is only the evidence of two witnesses. Pwl, the complainant, stated that be saw the respondents proceeding to the place of occurrence in a car and when be came to his property he saw the respondents causing mischief. Apart from the interested testimony of the complainant there is only the evidence of two witnesses. Pwl, the complainant, stated that be saw the respondents proceeding to the place of occurrence in a car and when be came to his property he saw the respondents causing mischief. Pw1 admitted in cross-examination that to reach this property the respondents need not have gone through the road situated in front of the appellant's house. The, other two witnesses also could not satisfactorily explain as to how they happened to be present there. Pw2 stated that he was sitting in a nearby tea shop and the incident happened in the early morning of a Sunday, The particular tea shop owner was examined as Dw1. He stated that during Sundays his tea shop remains closed. The evidence of Pw3 also was found to be unsatisfactory by the trial court and there is also no direct evidence to show that the concrete pillar planted in the property of the appellant was removed from that place and put in a well. So under the facts and circumstances of the case the court below was justified in acquitting the accused. The criminal appeal is dismissed.