S. C. DATTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the complainant against the order dated 14-9-1984 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Registrate, Cuttack reversing the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Second Class, Cuttack. ( 2 ) THE respondent faced trial before the learned Judicial Registrate Second Class, Cuttack for alleged commission of offences under Sections 427, 448, 504 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'i. P. C. ' ). The trial Court found the respondent guilty of all charges and sentenced him to suffer R. I. for one month for the offence under Section 427 and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- for each offence under Sections 352, 448 and 504, I. P. C. , in default to undergo R. I. for two days on each count. The respondent carried an appeal and the appellate Court set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the respondent of all the charges, by order dated 14-9-2984. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved thereby, the complainant has preferred this appeal contending, inter alia, that the appellate Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the complainant and illegally passed an order of acquittal. ( 4 ) THE case of the complainant, in short, is that the building of the accused lies adjacent to the house of the complainant. On 8-6-1982 at about 5 P. M. the accused erected a boundary wall encroaching upon the roof of the building of the complainant and thereby caused damage to the plinth of his building to the extent of 30 feet. According the complainant, the roof of his house was since effected by this construction and he sustained a loss of Rs. 15,000/- due to this construction. It has been alleged that when the complainant protected against the illegal construction, the accused abused him in filthy languages and gave him push on the neck causing bodily pain. The accused however denied the incident. He claimed that there has been no encroachment upon the roof of the building of the complainant and he denied to have caused any damage to the plinth or roof of the building of the complainant. According to the accused the damage to the building was caused by banian tree. The accused however denied the incident. He claimed that there has been no encroachment upon the roof of the building of the complainant and he denied to have caused any damage to the plinth or roof of the building of the complainant. According to the accused the damage to the building was caused by banian tree. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate believed the case of the complainant and held the accused guilty of the charges framed against him. The appellate Court however, could not believe the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution and reversed the finding of the trial Court and acquitted the accused of all the charges. ( 6 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not disputed that the house of the accused lies adjacent to the house of the complainant. It is undisputed that a gap of 2-1/2 fect exists in between the building of the complainant and that of the accused. The specific allegation of the complainant is that on 8-6-1981 at 5 P. M. the accused with the help of labourers encroached upon the roof of the complainant and erected a boundary wall thereby causing damage to the roof as well as plinth of his building. He further alleged that on protest, the accused abused him in filthy languages and gave him a push on the neck. According to the complainant due to unauthorised construction he has sustained a loss of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/ -. The complainant besides examining himself, examined three other witnesses to prove the allegations against the accused. It may be remembered that in a case under Section 427, I. P. C. , it is for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused actually made construction encroaching upon the roof of the building of the complainant and thereby caused damage to his building. It is further to be established that the accused had necessary criminal intention or knowledge of causing a wrongful loss or damage to the complainant. The complainant (P. W. 1) has stated in his evidence that accused has constructed a brick wall encroaching upon the roof to the extent of one cubit thereby affecting his roof and causing damage to the plinth. The complainant (P. W. 1) has stated in his evidence that accused has constructed a brick wall encroaching upon the roof to the extent of one cubit thereby affecting his roof and causing damage to the plinth. It transpires from his cross-examination that the accused raised three brick pillars adjacent to his building and also constructed a roof on those pillars 2/3 days prior to the incident. Admittedly, no objection was raised to the construction of the pillars as well as roof on those pillars by the complainant. The evidence of the complainant shows that the roof was constructed by the accused on the brick pillars raised by him. It further transpires that the roof level of the building of the accused is about two feet higher than that of the building of the complainant. It is palpable, therefore, that the accused has not encroached upon the roof of the complainant by constructing a wall especially when, the roof of both the buildings are not on the same level. The complainant has admitted that a passage having a width of 2-1/2 feet runs in between the house of the complainant and the accused P. W. 1 has come to support the case of the complainant regarding the alleged encroachment by the accused. He has stated that the roof level of the building of the complainant and the accused is the same. Therefore, he contradicts the case of the complainant to the effect that the roof level of the house of the accused is higher than that of the complainant. This demonstrates that he has either not seen the building of the parties or has perjured himself. Similarly, the evidence of P. W. 3 is not trustworthy. He contradicts his previous statement with regard to the raising of the wall adjacent to the house of the complainant. P. W. 4 demolishis the case of the complainant by saying that the alleged boundary wall was constructed over a concrete roof belonging to the accused. This statement has come from the mouth of P. W. 4 during cross-examination. He has stated categorically that the roof of the house of the complainant is one feet lower than that of the accused. It may be noticed that the construction of the boundary wall on the roof led to the present dispute. This statement has come from the mouth of P. W. 4 during cross-examination. He has stated categorically that the roof of the house of the complainant is one feet lower than that of the accused. It may be noticed that the construction of the boundary wall on the roof led to the present dispute. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent when the construction of the boundary wall on the concrete roof of the respondent is proved the allegations of encroachment as well as damage to his house fails. It appears from the judgment of the appellate Court that the evidence of witnesses for the complainant was thoroughly scrytinised and analysed properly before the order of reversal of judgment of the trial Court was passed. The evidence of the witnesses of the complainant was examined by me thoroughly and I cannot come to a different conclusion. It appears that there had been proper appreciation of the evidence by the appellate Court and he has come to a right conclusion. There is no illegality in the order. ( 8 ) WITH regard to the assault and hurling of abusive words, it may be noted that the specific allegations of the complainant is that the accused had given him push on the neck and bused him when he protested against the illegal construction. It appears that the appellate Court could not place any reliance on the evidence of the witnesses for the complainant on the ground that they made prevaricated statements and perjured themselves. They spoke of alleged encroachment by the accused over the roof of the building of the complainant. But truth has come out from the mouth of one of witnesses of the complainant viz. P. W. 4 when he categorically states that the boundary wall was raised by the accused on his own roof which rests on three pillars built by the accused previously. This raising of boundary wall was the bone of contention between the parties. It has been established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that it was constructed over a roof of the building of the accused. The complainant did not take any stop either by local inspection or investigation to establish the fact of encroachment by the accused on his land. Nor any step has been taken to measure or to note the extent of so called damage. The complainant did not take any stop either by local inspection or investigation to establish the fact of encroachment by the accused on his land. Nor any step has been taken to measure or to note the extent of so called damage. ( 9 ) IT may be observed that law is far too well settled that mere abuse will not be sufficient without any intention to cause breach of peace or knowledge that the breach of peace is likely to occur. The question as to whether mere abuse would amount to an offence under this section would depend an several circumstances, such as the respective status of the parties, nature of abuse and other factors. The appellate Court notice that the alleged abusive words such as "sala Madhurchod" are generally used in case of petty quarrels between the parties and by that it cannot be inferred that the accused intentionally expressed such abusive words so as to insult the complainant and also to give provocation to him so as to break the public peace. It appears that law has been quite rightly applied by the appellate Court to the facts of the present case. ( 10 ) AS noticed earlier, the accused was constructing the boundary wall over his own roof. So the complainant was not justified in raising any protest for such construction. There might have been quarrel between the parties over the incident, but that, cannot fasten the accused of the charge of causing insult to the complainant. It appears that the appellate Court has quite rightly analysed and weighed the evidence and come to a correct conclusion. ( 11 ) ACCORDINGLY, I see no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.