Are you familiar with the phrases “in the right” and “in the wrong”? Perhaps you have heard of “right of way”? If I am traveling and have right of way, and we get into an accident, I am in the right. You would be in the wrong. If I have a right to my watch, and you take it from me without consent, then you are in the wrong.
This is what justice is all about - who is in the right. If, in the course of robbing me, I hit the robber, then I would be in the right (of course, I am only allowed to use so much violence before I would be in the wrong). My actions would be justified - I was in the right. If I were to kill the robber, and it turned out I used excessive force, then my actions would be unjustified - I was in the wrong.
You could certainly say that stealing an apple from a fruit stand in order to give it to some starving child is morally good. I would not nessarily agree with that statement. But to say that it is justified is to misunderstand what justice is. By stealing the apple, you have taken something to which you had no legitimate claim - you were in the wrong. The fruit vendor has the legitimate claim. Stealing the apple would be an unjustified action, even if your end goal is meant to be honorable. But here’s the thing, the fruit vendor has a tort against you now. You stole from him, and now he has a dispute with you.
If you want to say that so long as your goal is honorable, then your actions are justified, we have a phrase for that: “The ends justify the means”. I don’t believe that this is a just philosophy to hold.
I suggest that you read these two posts by forum member Clayton:
A Praxeological Account of Law
While those two posts do not directly address your question, they will provide you with a framework for law and dispute resolution, which is very relevant to theft.