CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case highlights a problem of frequent occurrence in a society below the line of poverty. A literary man might depict the picture as if society were the villain of the piece, but the law, being obligated to the maintenance of order, is made of sterner stuff and deals with men whose circumstances may drive them to deviations called crimes in a punitive way, so that there may be deterrence for him and for others from a repetition of such antisocial acts and correctional treatment if that were possible, in the case of a diseased mind which an offender usually possesses.

(2.) THE accused, who is the revision petitioner, has been convicted for an offence Under Section 379, IPC for allegedly committing the theft of two five-rupee notes unobtrusively from the pocket of P. W. 1, a fellow passenger who was travelling in bus K. L, Rule 2778 along the Mattancherri-Kaloor road on 19-11-1968 somewhere about 10 a. m. In short, the revision petitioner was charged with 'peaceful' pick-pocketing of an unsuspecting fellow passenger from a crowded bus during a rush hour in the forenoon. of the 19th November, 1968. He was found guilty although he denied the offence; and his counsel in this Court cutely urged arguments about direct evidence being absent or incredible but the disingenuous plea of the revision petitioner in the courts below and the ingenious submissions of his counsel in this Court share the same fate on the merits. I have no hesitation to hold that Shri Chacko, the offender, has been rightly convicted for theft in a public vehicle.

(3.) IN every criminal case, a dichotomy becomes inevitable; culpability is the first stage and the sentence to be awarded the second. Being challaned as an accused was no novelty for Shri Chacko even as a criminal conviction was not the first or even the second occasion when he was marched into a prison cell. The learned Public Pro- secutor has brought to my notice his antecedents on the criminal side which are hardly complimentary to him or helpful to the plea for leniency his counsel has persisted in. But what are the circumstances of the man? Chacko, according to the record, is around 38 years and his calling is nil, although the Public Prosecutor would sarcastically describe it to be stealing since there are three pending cases of theft against him. It must be noticed that the man has a family to support and 6 children to bring up. Burdened by parental obligations, left to starve without any licit employment, the culprit has turned to petty crime to make a living, if one may describe his circumstances sardonically. Apparently, he is of somewhat violent disposition because there is the hard fact that a few years ago he was involved in a case and received punishment in the shape of two years imprisonment Under Section' 304, Part II, IPC One may visualise his ethical personality as hardened by economic adversity and by life in iail, nevertheless, fighting to live and to keep his family going. Counsel for the petitioner states that his client is a fisherman and is now lawfully employed. It is common ground that his eldest son is also a worker earning Rs. 5/- per day. The prospects of turning a new leaf and living a licit life of responsibility and affection for his family are not altogether lost. The risk of becoming an anti-social, light-fingered when the opportunity offers itself and peacefully pick-pocketing his companions if a police man is not at his elbow, and even resorting to force it driven to that need cannot be ruled out. The totality of circumstances relevant to his present stage of the case has not received that specialised study that the law requires or humanism and Justice regard as proper.