My First Learning from a Thief

I began my practice at the end of the year 1995 as a junior to the office of Late Advocate Sri.V.J.Varkey at Kottayam station. At the time of my joining there were about 15 juniors having active practice with my senior and it was unusual for me to engage with the files of the office by avoiding the other elder juniors. In the first 6 months of my practice, I was merely spectator before the lower courts other than "pray for time" for my senior. As junior lawyers, one of my friend and me were entrusted with the the case of an alleged habitual offender from CJM court for crown defence in the middle of the year 1996.On perusal of the Charge Sheet I surprised that my client has just covered 18 years and the offence charged against him was under Se.380 of IPC and 6 other similar cases were simultaneously registered by the police against my client for burglary/theft. On my enquiry I understood that my client is not having any school education and belongs to a poor Tamil family residing in a railway colony shed. Since my client was under judicial custody, the trial was so speedy and I met my client at the sub-jail and discussed with the matters just two days before the date posted for the examination of the witness. On that visit I was of the belief that I could collect relevant materials for a proper defence, and well prepared for the cross examination of the witnesses for the on going dates. On the date of evidence, the police produced my client before the court at 11 a.m and after Roll Call of his cases he called me to his side near the accused's box by gusters. In fact I was of the belief that my client had to give some more information regarding the present witnesses on that date. But surprisingly it was not for giving any mor information in my concept but for giving me an advise. He told me to put up a defence case that the charged section of 380 IPC would not stand, even though the witnesses were supporting the police case. On seeing my perplexity on my face, he told that the alleged place of theft in the charge sheet is only an open shed and not a dwelling house, and section379 is only suited to the case and also advised me to apply for a short adjurnment in case I have any doubt regarding the charged section. On my anxious query he told that the advice was given from the jailmates of my client experienced with similer crimes. My cross examination of the witnesses and claimpetition over the unidentified stollen articles on the basis of the advice of my client was appriciated by the judge. Even though a surprising end of my engagement happened at the middle in that case, the timely advice of my client is glittering in my mind.