JOSEPH THOMAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are accused 1 and 4 and they stand convicted by the Munsiff-Magistrate, Ettumanoor under S. 379 read with s. 34 IPC. , and sentenced to pay a fine. THEy, along with three others, were charged with offences falling under S. 379, 506 (ii) and 34 IPC. , in that they committed theft of coconuts from Pwl's compound, and when he went and obstructed, he was threatened, brandishing deadly weapons. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife, and No. 3 is their daughter. Accused 4 and 5 are labourers with whose help the coconuts are stated to have been plucked. Accused 1 to 3 are kudikidappukars in the property and according to the 1st accused, he is entitled to 10 cents surrounding his kudikidappu under the present Land reform Act, and it is in that bonafide belief that the nuts were plucked. Learned Magistrate acquitted accused Nos. 2, 3 and S on the ground that no criminal intention can be attributed to them. THE act attributed to them is that they collected the nuts, and took them away from the scene. THE 4th accused on the other hand, was the climber who according to the learned magistrate, had shared the dishonest intention of the 1st accused. THE conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Additional sessions Judge of Kottayam.

(2.) I do not think, the conviction entered on the 4th accused, can be sustained. Like the 5th accused he too was only a labourer and if no dishonest intention can be attributed to the 5th accused, there is no reason why the same argument cannot prevail in respect of the 4th accused also. Learned State Prosecutor himself did not press for a conviction against the 4th accused.