No evidence that the dogs belonged to accused.

The petitioners A1 to A4 are the accused in C.C. No. 114 of 1993 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. They were convicted for the offence punishable under section 429 of the IPC and were sentenced to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. They filed an appeal in C.A. No. 4/94 on the file of the learned Addl. Session Judge, Tirunelveli who in turn confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. Hence this revision.

2. The facts are as follows :

On 16-9-1992 at about 1-30 mid night, in a garden which belong to the Sivalinga Nadar Kizpandaram, the ships were kept in an enclosure and at that time, 4 dogs which belong to the petitioner entered into the garden and indiscriminately bite the goats. As a result of this, 28 goats died and 19 goats sustained serious injuries. The loss occurred to the owners of the goats was to the tune of Rs. 17,000/-. On the complaint of the owner of the goats, a case was registered against the petitioners by the police. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sections 427 and 429 of the IPC.

3. On behalf of the prosecution, 15 witnesses were examined and 10 exhibits were marked. The petitioners pleaded not guilty. However on consideration of the materials placed before the Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under section 429 of the IPC and sentenced them as referred to above. As stated earlier, the learned Sessions Judge in the appeal filed by them, concurred with the view expressed by the trial Court.

4. In this revision, Mr. N. Sankaravadivel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend by pointing out the various portion of the judgments of the Courts below and reading out the deposition of the witnesses that the ingredients of Section 425 and 429 of the IPC have not been made out and that the conviction imposed on the petitioners for the said section cannot be sustained. On the other hand, Mr. C. M. Gunasekaran, learned Government Advocate would repel the said submissions stating that the protection has established those ingredients by examining the eye witnesses, the local villagers and the owners of the goats and the doctor.

5. I have heard and given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

6. This revision filed by the petitioners has to be allowed on a short' ground, which is as follows :

As per Section 429 of the IPC whoever commits mischief by killing any animal of the value of Rs. 50/- or upwards shall be punished. The word mischief is defined under section 425 of the IPC. This section provides whoever within intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person so as to destroy or diminish it's value or utility commits mischief. In illustration (h) it is provided that 'A' causes cattle to enter upon a field belonging to 'Z' intending to cause and knowing that he is likely to cause damage to the said crop, 'A' has committed mischief.

so reading of the above section would make it clear that if any person who intend to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause damage, causes the dogs to enter into the garden with an intention to cause injury to the goats or to cause death to those goats knowing that he is likely to cause damage, then Section 429 is attracted. There are three ingredients to be proved as against that person who is charged for the offence punishable under section 429 of the IPC :

1) The accused committed mischief as defined under section 425 of the IPC.

2) The mischief committed by killing or maiming or rendering useless.

3) a mischief committed on animal including the goats of the value of Rs. 50/- or upwards.

7. A plain reading of Section 425 of the IPC would reveal that the offence described in the said section imports the act done wilfully or with the knowledge that the