ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal challenge is to the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baripada (in short, 'the JMFC' ). ( 2 ) I. O. C. No. 40 of 1944 was instituted by the complainant-appellant alleging that the eleven respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') committed offences punishable under Sections 447/426 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'the IPC' ). Case of the complainant as reflected in the complaint petition as to the effect that he was in cultivating possession of a piece of land measuring about two acres four gunthas situated in mouza Chakulias tenant under landlords Dhir Sundar Bhanj Babu, Sura Sundar Bhanj Babu and Abhinna Sundar Bhanj Babu, who are respondents 9 to 11. Like every year, in the year of occurrence the complainant had sown paddy in the land and on 20-5-1984 the accused-respondents forcibly ploughed the case land as a result of which the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 200/ -. ( 3 ) ACCUSED persons denied the allegation of criminal trespass and committing of mischief. Accused Dhir Sundar, Sura Sundar and Abhinna Sundar although admitted that they were the landlords with respect to the disputed land, denied the assertion that complainant had been inducted by them as tenant with respect to the said land. ( 4 ) ON consideration of the evidence of six witnesses examined to further the prosecution case, learned JMFC found that the evidence of witnesses was full of discrepancies, unreliable and therefore, directed acquittal. ( 5 ) MR. B. K. Misra, learned counsel for the complainant-appellant submitted that ingredients of offence alleged were clearly made out, and the learned JMFC was not sustained in directing acquittal. The learned counsel for accused-respondents supported the order of acquittal. ( 6 ) AT this juncture it is to be noticed that complainant (P. W. 1) has not claimed to be an eye-witness to the occurrence which fact also was clearly asserted by him during trial. The star witness was P. W. 6, son of the complainant, who alleged to have seen the occurrence. In addition, P. Ws. 2 to 5 claimed to be witnesses to the occurrence. Learned JMFC found certain interesting features. The star witness was P. W. 6, son of the complainant, who alleged to have seen the occurrence. In addition, P. Ws. 2 to 5 claimed to be witnesses to the occurrence. Learned JMFC found certain interesting features. According to him, the plea that paddy was damaged was not believable because the germination period is at least five days and the accusations were to the effect that much prior to the germination period the damage was caused by reploughing. The plea that the plants had grown up to 2" by the fourth day, according to him, was a improbability. While P. W. 2 stated that there was growth of up to 2" height, P. W. 3 stated that there way no growth of paddy plants on the alleged date of occurrence. Evidence of P. W. 2 is fatal to the complainant's case as the said witness clearly accepted that the accused persons had raised paddy crops in the year of occurrence in the disputed land, he also accepted that he had no land near the disputed land. P. W. 3 stated that apart from himself, the complainant and accused persons, none else was present near the land at the time of occurrence. This rules out presence of P. Ws. 2, 4 and 6, interestingly, complainant (P. W. 1) accepted that he was not present. ( 7 ) SECTION 426, IPC deals with punishment for the offence of "mischief" as defined in Section 425. Said Section 425 enacts a rule of which the maxim sic utter two at alieumum non-losses is but a partial exponent. It enacts a rule which, while preserving to the owner the maximum rights of property, prevents his using it to the injury or damage of another and all fortiori it punishes all who wantonly cause such injury or damage to another's property. Neither malice nor an intention to cause injury is essential for the constitution of the offence which may be committed by injury caused with only the knowledge of likelihood, which must, however, he strictly proved. The first part of the Section sets out the mens rea on the guilty mind, which is the intention or the knowledge of likelihood of causing wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. The first part of the Section sets out the mens rea on the guilty mind, which is the intention or the knowledge of likelihood of causing wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. The second part of the Section pertains to the actus res, that is to say, the criminal act, which consists in causing destruction to 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. The express mention of "damage" in the Section is indicative of the fact that the purview of the offence of "mischief" is not intended to be confined only to cases of "wrongful loss", but also to engulf within it all such cases of damages by unlawful means. Destruction of any property within the meaning of the Section carries with it the implication that something should be done to the property contrary to its natural use and serviceableness. Mischief implies the causing of wrongful loss or damage and no loss or damage is wrongful unless it involves invasion of a legal right. In any other case it is damnum sine injuria (See Section 44 ). This being the position, the learned JMFC has rightly concluded that the complainant's version was established. ( 8 ) SO far as accusation relating to Section 447, IPC is concerned, the accepted position being that the complainant (P. W. 4) was not present at the time of occurrence, question of his getting annoyance, insult or intimidation does not arise. Section 441 makes the trespass criminal, if the entry is with the intent to commit an offence, and for that it is not necessary that the offence must be against the person in possession. The entry is also criminal if the intention is to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession. In view of the unrealiable evidence, learned JMFC was justified in recording acquittal. I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .