Prosecution Of Petty Theft With Violence
Introduction: Petty Theft with Violence in Nepal
Petty theft with violence is distinct from ordinary theft because it involves both:
Theft or unlawful taking of property (even of small value), and
Use or threat of violence against a person during the act.
Legal Provisions:
Nepal Penal Code (Muluki Ain, 2017, as amended)
Section 270: Theft punishable with fine or imprisonment.
Section 271: Theft with violence (robbery) is punishable with stricter imprisonment.
Section 272–273: Aggravated forms, such as armed robbery or theft causing grievous harm.
Key Elements for Prosecution:
Unauthorized taking of property.
Use or threat of physical force or violence.
Intent to permanently deprive the owner of property.
1. State v. Ram Bahadur KC (2014)
Facts:
Ram Bahadur KC snatched a mobile phone from a pedestrian at knife-point in Kathmandu. The stolen item’s value was relatively small (around NPR 15,000).
Court Decision:
Court found the act constituted petty theft with violence because physical force was used to intimidate the victim.
The court differentiated between simple theft (without force) and theft involving direct threat to personal safety.
Sentence:
3 years’ imprisonment and restitution of the stolen item.
Significance:
Shows that even low-value theft becomes a serious offense if violence is involved.
Establishes that courts focus on harm to the person, not only the value of property.
2. Sita Kumari v. State (2016)
Facts:
Sita Kumari and an accomplice tried to snatch a purse from a woman near a bus stop in Lalitpur. During the attempt, the victim resisted, and Kumari punched her in the face. The purse contained only NPR 5,000.
Court Decision:
Court emphasized that any use of physical violence or intimidation during theft is enough to classify it as robbery under Section 271.
Kumari’s gender and youth were considered in sentencing but did not exempt her from criminal liability.
Sentence:
2 years’ imprisonment with conditional probation, plus mandatory compensation to the victim.
Significance:
Illustrates that even minor theft with minimal violence is prosecutable.
Highlights judicial discretion in balancing punishment with the offender’s background.
3. Rajan Thapa Case (2012)
Facts:
Rajan Thapa stole a bicycle from a local market and struck the owner with a stick when confronted. The injury was minor but required medical attention.
Court Decision:
Court held that Thapa’s conduct constituted petty theft with violence.
Injury to the victim, however minor, aggravated the crime.
Court relied on Section 272 to enhance the sentence due to bodily harm.
Sentence:
4 years’ imprisonment and payment of medical expenses.
Significance:
Confirms that violence escalates a theft to a more serious offense, triggering stricter sentencing.
Minor injuries or low-value items do not reduce criminal liability.
4. Binod Gurung v. Government of Nepal (2018)
Facts:
Binod Gurung attempted to steal a wallet from a bus passenger. When caught, he pushed the victim and caused minor bruises. The stolen item contained NPR 1,200.
Court Decision:
Court ruled that any intentional application of force during theft qualifies as robbery, irrespective of the stolen amount.
Court stressed deterrence, noting that violence during petty theft threatens public safety.
Sentence:
3 years’ imprisonment and return of stolen money.
Significance:
Establishes the principle that robbery is defined by violence, not value.
Courts consider intent, use of force, and potential threat to public order.
5. Thapa Brothers Robbery Case (2015)
Facts:
Two brothers snatched goods worth NPR 10,000 from a shopkeeper and beat him with sticks during the act. Local police arrested them immediately.
Court Decision:
Court categorized the case as petty theft with violence (robbery).
Aggravating factors included use of weapons (sticks) and premeditation.
Sentence:
5 years’ imprisonment each and restitution to the victim.
Significance:
Shows how armed violence during petty theft leads to stricter sentencing.
Reinforces deterrence against violent crimes, even if the property stolen is of low value.
6. Krishna Shrestha Case (2019)
Facts:
Krishna Shrestha tried to snatch a gold chain from a woman near a temple. During the struggle, he pulled her hair and caused minor cuts. The chain was valued at NPR 8,000.
Court Decision:
Court convicted Shrestha under Section 271, emphasizing that the combination of theft and physical harm constitutes petty theft with violence.
Court rejected defense arguments about the low value of the chain.
Sentence:
3 years’ imprisonment and monetary compensation to the victim.
Significance:
Demonstrates that public perception of violence is critical in prosecution.
Even culturally minor or ritual locations (like near a temple) do not exempt offenders from prosecution.
Key Takeaways from These Cases
Value of property is irrelevant – even items of low monetary worth can trigger criminal liability if violence is involved.
Violence or threat of force is key – any intentional harm or intimidation elevates theft to a more serious crime.
Aggravating factors – use of weapons, premeditation, or injury increases sentencing.
Victim protection is paramount – courts often order restitution or compensation in addition to imprisonment.
Public deterrence matters – these cases reinforce the message that violence during theft will not be tolerated.
RELATED Blog
comments