KOCHI: Quoting the lyrics from the poem ‘Moshanam’ written by poet late Ayyappa Paniker, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday observed that the first offender in a theft case need not be sent to jail in all situations in view of the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code. “If a person commits a small theft, society must reform him,” held Justice P V Kunhikrishnan. The court cited the lyrics ‘Verumoru Moshtavayorenne Kallanennu Vilichille...’ which means “just because I have stolen a few things, why should you call me a thief.”
The court made the observation while setting aside the conviction of Abdul Rahoof, of West Kodoor, Malappuram, who stabbed two persons for calling him a thief. According to the police, the prosecution witnesses blamed the accused by spreading a rumour that he was a thief. The accused wanted to shed the label of thief from his name. He met the prosecution witnesses for clearing the nickname. But instead of discussing the issue, they provoked the accused by characterising him as a thief.
The incident in this case happened in that situation. The court observed that it did not want to contradict great poet Ayyappa Paniker, because poetry was the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings. It took its origin from emotions recollected in tranquillity. “But with great respect to the poet, I have to say that the concluding portion of the poem was not entirely correct in the light of Section 360 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code (courts power to release an offender involved in trivial offences after admonition) and Section 3 of Probation of offenders Act 1958”.
The court observed that the criminal justice delivery system can attain its ultimate aim only with the help of society. To err is human. If a person commits some small mistakes, Section 360 of CrPC and Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act will protect that person. But society should also protect him by not treating him as a criminal or a thief.
While setting aside the sentence of the Manjeri Additional Sessions Court, the High Court observed that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The prosecution has not come up with the correct picture of the case. That itself is a ground to give benefit of doubt to an accused in a case like this, the court held.