Snatching Offences
1. Introduction
Snatching is a specific form of theft or robbery where the offender forcibly takes away property from a person’s possession without their consent, usually in a quick, sudden manner. It is a common street crime often targeting valuables like bags, mobiles, or jewelry.
2. Legal Definition and Relevant Sections
Snatching is often dealt under Section 379 IPC (Theft) and Section 392 IPC (Robbery), depending on the use or threat of violence.
Section 380 IPC also covers theft in a dwelling house or building.
The key element is taking away property from a person’s possession by force or threat of force, but without causing grievous hurt or assault which differentiates it from robbery.
When snatching involves use of force, it may be upgraded to robbery under Section 392 IPC.
Sometimes, Section 354 IPC (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) is added if the victim is a woman.
3. Essential Ingredients of Snatching
Taking property from a person’s possession or presence.
The act is sudden and quick.
Use of force or immediate threat causing fear or injury.
Lack of consent from the victim.
Absence of prolonged assault or violence (which would make it robbery).
4. Important Case Laws on Snatching
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Suresh AIR 1983 SC 947
Facts: The accused snatched a chain from a woman and ran away.
Held: The Supreme Court held that snatching involves theft with force or violence causing alarm to the victim. If the force causes grievous hurt, it becomes robbery.
Importance: This case clarified the distinction between snatching (theft with force) and robbery (theft with violence or hurt).
Case 2: Ratan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1962 SC 719
Facts: The accused snatched a bag from a woman.
Held: The court held that snatching is complete the moment property is taken forcibly from victim’s possession. The offense does not require the accused to succeed in escaping; mere taking with force suffices.
Importance: Defined the moment the offense of snatching is complete.
Case 3: Sunil v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC 2937
Facts: Accused was charged with snatching a purse forcibly.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the slightest application of force with the intention to snatch property constitutes the offense, even if the victim does not resist.
Importance: Emphasized the minimal threshold of force to constitute snatching.
Case 4: Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana AIR 2015 SC 353
Facts: Accused snatched a woman’s handbag on a moving bus.
Held: The Court held that snatching on a moving vehicle increases the risk of injury and thus justifies strict punishment. The accused’s act was held to be a serious snatching offense.
Importance: Highlighted circumstances aggravating the offense.
Case 5: Krishna Ramchandra vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 1179
Facts: The accused snatched a gold chain from a woman.
Held: The Court ruled that if the victim is a woman, additional charges under Section 354 IPC (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage modesty) can be added.
Importance: Protection of women victims in snatching cases.
Case 6: Raghunath v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1989 SC 2195
Facts: The accused snatched a purse and used a weapon to threaten the victim.
Held: The Supreme Court held that use of weapon or causing injury during snatching upgrades the offense to robbery under Section 392 IPC.
Importance: Clarified the boundary between snatching and robbery.
5. Distinction between Snatching, Theft, and Robbery
| Offense | Use of Force | Victim’s Awareness | Punishment | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theft | No force | Unaware | Section 379 IPC | General law |
| Snatching | Use of force or immediate threat | Victim aware, startled | Section 380 IPC or 392 IPC (if violence) | State of Maharashtra v. Suresh |
| Robbery | Use of violence causing hurt or fear | Victim threatened/hurt | Section 392 IPC | Raghunath v. Maharashtra |
6. Summary Table
| Case | Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Suresh | Snatching is theft with force, robbery if grievous hurt | Clarified offense nature |
| Ratan Singh v. Punjab | Snatching complete when property taken forcibly | Defined offense completion |
| Sunil v. Maharashtra | Minimal force suffices for snatching | Low threshold for force |
| Raj Kumar v. Haryana | Snatching on moving vehicle serious | Aggravated offense |
| Krishna Ramchandra v. Maharashtra | Woman victim—additional assault charges | Enhanced protection |
| Raghunath v. Maharashtra | Weapon use upgrades to robbery | Offense elevation |
7. Conclusion
Snatching offenses are treated seriously due to the immediate fear, injury, and social impact on victims, especially vulnerable groups like women. Courts have evolved clear principles distinguishing snatching from theft and robbery, emphasizing minimal force, victim’s fear, and circumstances aggravating the crime.
Strict punishment and protective laws ensure deterrence while protecting victims’ rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments