Snatching As A Form Of Robbery
Legal Background:
Snatching means forcibly or secretly taking away property from a person.
Under Indian law, snatching is generally treated as a form of robbery when the victim is in immediate presence and there is use or threat of force.
Robbery is defined under Section 390 and Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). When snatching involves violence or threat of instant force, it qualifies as robbery.
If the force or threat is absent, it may amount to theft or extortion.
Legal Distinction:
| Aspect | Theft | Snatching as Robbery |
|---|---|---|
| Use of force | No | Yes, force or threat is immediate |
| Victim’s presence | Not mandatory | Mandatory |
| Intention | Dishonest taking without force | Dishonest taking with force/fear |
| Punishment | Lesser | More severe (Section 392 IPC) |
Key Points:
Snatching is always from the immediate possession of the victim.
The victim must have felt or been exposed to instant force or threat.
Mere taking away without resistance or fear is not robbery.
Courts look for the degree of violence and victim’s reaction to decide.
Important Case Laws on Snatching as Robbery
1. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
Facts:
The accused snatched a gold chain from the neck of the victim by force.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that snatching a gold chain forcibly is a form of robbery as it involves instant use of force and fear.
Importance:
Established that snatching a chain forcibly amounts to robbery under IPC Section 392.
2. Jagannath v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1996)
Facts:
Accused forcibly snatched a purse from a woman walking on the street.
Held:
Court observed that since the victim was in immediate presence and force/threat was used to snatch the purse, the offense amounted to robbery.
Importance:
Emphasized that force or threat used during snatching converts theft into robbery.
3. Nandan Kumar v. State of Bihar (2002)
Facts:
Accused grabbed the handbag of the victim and ran away without any visible use of force.
Held:
Court held it was simple theft and not robbery because no force or threat was used that induced instant fear.
Importance:
Highlighted the absence of force or fear excludes robbery charge even if property is taken from possession.
4. State of Punjab v. Charanjit Singh (1995)
Facts:
The accused snatched a chain from a woman’s neck using some force, but the victim was not seriously hurt.
Held:
Supreme Court held it as robbery because the act involved immediate violence and took place in the victim's presence.
Importance:
Confirmed that even minor force suffices to establish robbery in snatching cases.
5. Balkrishna v. State of Maharashtra (1988)
Facts:
During a snatching incident, accused pushed the victim and snatched her purse.
Held:
Court held it was robbery because the victim was made to fear instant violence and there was physical contact.
Importance:
Ruled that causing fear by pushing or slight violence suffices to upgrade theft to robbery.
6. Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009)
Facts:
The accused snatched a chain from the victim’s neck by grabbing her, and she suffered minor injuries.
Held:
Court held the act constituted robbery due to use of force and injury.
Importance:
Highlighted that any injury, no matter how minor, during snatching strengthens robbery charge.
Summary of Legal Principles:
Victim's Immediate Presence: Snatching must occur in victim’s presence.
Use or Threat of Force: Instant violence or threat must be present.
Physical Contact: Slight physical contact like pushing, grabbing supports robbery charge.
Victim’s Reaction: Fear or injury caused during snatching increases severity.
No Force, No Robbery: Mere theft of property without force is not robbery.
Conclusion:
Snatching, when done with use or threat of immediate force or violence, is classified as robbery.
Courts apply a broad interpretation of "force" and "fear" to protect victims.
Each case depends on the facts—presence of violence or threat is the key factor.
This distinction is important as robbery carries harsher punishment compared to theft.
RELATED Blog
0 comments