R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE order of conviction and sentence of the accused persons under Sections 447 and 506, I. P. C. passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Birmaharajpur, in ICC No. 12 of 1991 and upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bolangir, is assailed in this revision. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the case of the complainant, opposite party herein, is that he being the adopted son of one Hansa Tandiani is in possession of all her properties including the disputed land measuring 4. 1. 910 decs. on 17-6-91 at about 8 A. M. when Bhola Mahananda, P. W. 2 was ploughing the disputed land, being engaged by him, all the accused persons arrived there and unyoked the plough. To their such illegal action he raised protest, but they abused him in filthy language and threatened to assault. The matter was then brought to the notice of the Officer-in-charge of Birmaharajpur P. S. who refused to take any action. Hence the complaint. ( 3 ) ACCUSED persons advanced the plea of bona fide claim of right; inasmuch as they being near relations of Hansa Tandiani have been possessing all her lands including the land in question. ( 4 ) THE complainant in order to bring home the charge to the accused persons examined as many as five witnesses including himself and the accused persons, on the other hand, examined two witnesses. The learned trial court on evaluation of the evidence accepted the complainant's version and consequently convicted the accused persons under Sections 447 and 506, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month on each count. On appeal the learned Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the trial court and maintained the conviction. However, on the question of sentence the appellate court while confirming the substantive sentence of simple imprisonment, set aside the fine imposed by the trial court. ( 5 ) AS to the factual aspect regarding the alleged entry of the accused persons into the disputed land, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate first class proceeded to decide as to who was in physical possession on the relevant date. ( 5 ) AS to the factual aspect regarding the alleged entry of the accused persons into the disputed land, the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate first class proceeded to decide as to who was in physical possession on the relevant date. For arriving at such finding he referred to the evidence adduced by the parties and on appraisal of the same came to hold that it was the complainant who was in possession of the land in question. So far the alleged incident is concerned, he accepted the version of the complainant that the accused persons came upon the disputed land and unyoked the bullocks when the land was being ploughed. On appeal being preferred the appellate court reassessed the evidence and accepted the trial court's findings. In view of such concurrent findings, no further scrutiny of the evidence is permissible since this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction cannot dislodge the findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. ( 6 ) THE question then arises whether the entry of the accused persons into the land in possession of the complainant was in exercise of bona fide claim of right. It may be reiterated that the accused persons in their statement recorded under Section 513, Cr. P. C. claimed to have a right on the lands of Hansa Tandiani, being related to her through her husband. It is well settled proposition of law that in order to bring home the charge of criminal trespass, prosecution has to prove by leading cogent and acceptable evidence that the real intention of the accused was to commit an offence or to insult, intimidate or annoy the occupant. However, if the accused advances plea of bona fide claim of right and establishes the same, in that case he can be absolved of the criminal liability, the reason being that while making entry, he entertained the belief in good faith that he was entitled to possession of the land. On the other hand, if the circumstances are such that he could not have entertained such belief, it would be fair to infer that his very entry was with the intention to annoy the occupant. In the present case, the learned trial court declined to accept the bona fide claim of right of the accused persons mainly on the ground that the complainant was found to be in possession of the land in question. In the present case, the learned trial court declined to accept the bona fide claim of right of the accused persons mainly on the ground that the complainant was found to be in possession of the land in question. For better appreciation, the relevant finding in that context is extracted hereunder :"x x x x In a prosecution for the offence under this Section the defence of a bona fide claim of right is open only to a person who has a bona fide belief that he has a right to enter upon the land in question where, therefore the accused bona fide believed that the title of the land vested in them on the death of Hansa Tandiani but at the same time they were aware that P. W. 1 has an equal claim being the brother's son of Hansa Tandiani and was in occupation of the land and they were not entitled to enter the land except by due process of law, the action of the accused persons in forcing an entry into the land could not be held to be in assertion of a bona fide claim. x x"as stated earlier when both parties asserted their right over the land in question independently; inasmuch as the complainant claimed as adopted son whereas the accused persons claimed as heirs of the admitted owner, namely, Hansa Tandiani, and there being no evidence worth the name adduced by the complainant to show prima facie that he was the adopted son of the true owner, the trial court has gone wrong in not accepting the bona fide claim of right of the accused persons, particularly when there is no challenge to their claim of relationship with Hansa Tandiani by the complainant. I am therefore, of the opinion that their claim being bona fide they cannot be held liable for criminal trespass punishable under Section 447, IPC. ( 7 ) COMING to the offence under Section 506, IPC I find no discussion of evidence of all the P. Ws. by the trial court as well as by the appellate court as to whether sufficient materials have been laid by the complainant in support of the said charge. So, in absence of any acceptable evidence offences under Section 506, IPC cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. by the trial court as well as by the appellate court as to whether sufficient materials have been laid by the complainant in support of the said charge. So, in absence of any acceptable evidence offences under Section 506, IPC cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision is allowed and the judgements of both the courts below are set aside. Consequently the accused persons are found not guilty of the charge and are acquitted. Revision allowed.