Chain Snatching Offences
What is Chain Snatching?
Chain snatching refers to the criminal act of forcibly or stealthily pulling away a necklace or chain worn by a person, usually women, in a public place. It is a form of theft with force or intimidation.
Legal Provisions Related to Chain Snatching in India
Chain snatching can involve several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), depending on the circumstances:
Section 379 IPC: Theft — when the chain is taken without consent and dishonestly.
Section 380 IPC: Theft in dwelling house (rarely applicable unless inside the home).
Section 382 IPC: Theft after preparation for causing death, hurt, or restraint.
Section 392 IPC: Robbery — theft with force or threat of force.
Section 394 IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.
Section 397 IPC: Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
Section 411 IPC: Dishonestly receiving stolen property.
Section 34 IPC: Common intention (when multiple offenders act together).
Distinction Between Theft, Robbery and Snatching
Theft (Section 379 IPC): Taking the chain dishonestly without consent, but without using force or threat.
Snatching (Robbery Section 392 IPC): Taking the chain by using force or by putting the victim in fear of instant violence.
If the chain snatching involves grievous hurt or death, more serious sections like 397 IPC apply.
Punishment
Theft: Imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both.
Robbery (Section 392 IPC): Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.
Aggravated Robbery (Section 397 IPC): Imprisonment for life or up to 10 years plus fine.
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws on Chain Snatching Offences
1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) — Supreme Court
Facts: The case primarily dealt with the definition of 'force' and 'fear' in the context of robbery and snatching.
Held: The Supreme Court clarified that snatching a chain forcibly or by causing fear amounts to robbery under Section 392 IPC, not mere theft.
Importance: Established that snatching is robbery if there is force or fear; no need for bodily harm.
2. State of Punjab v. Gian Kaur (2013) — Punjab & Haryana High Court
Facts: Accused snatched a gold chain from a woman while she was walking in a market.
Held: Court convicted under Section 392 IPC, stating that the act of forcibly pulling a chain clearly amounts to robbery.
Importance: Reinforced that even a slight use of force to remove property from a person makes it robbery.
3. Subhash v. State of Maharashtra (2012) — Bombay High Court
Facts: Chain snatching case with multiple accused involved in the act.
Held: The court applied Section 34 IPC (common intention) and upheld convictions for robbery.
Importance: Highlighted that when a group acts together, common intention makes each liable for the entire crime.
4. Jitender v. State of Delhi (2018) — Delhi High Court
Facts: Accused snatched a chain from a woman on a crowded street.
Held: Conviction under Section 392 IPC upheld; the court observed that presence of crowd does not negate the fear and force used.
Importance: Showed that public place and witnesses do not lessen gravity of offense.
5. Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2016) — Rajasthan High Court
Facts: Accused forcibly snatched a chain and tried to run away; victim sustained injuries.
Held: Conviction upgraded to Section 394 IPC (robbery with voluntarily causing hurt).
Importance: Injury to the victim during snatching aggravates the offense.
6. State of Tamil Nadu v. Ravichandran (2019) — Madras High Court
Facts: Accused involved in multiple chain snatching incidents.
Held: Court imposed enhanced punishment based on Section 397 IPC due to threat of grievous harm.
Importance: Set precedent for stricter punishment in habitual or violent snatching cases.
7. Suresh v. State of Karnataka (2014) — Karnataka High Court
Facts: Chain snatched from a woman while traveling on a bus.
Held: Court held that the use of force in a moving vehicle qualifies as robbery.
Importance: Expanded the scope to public transport scenarios.
8. Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) — Allahabad High Court
Facts: The accused was convicted of chain snatching under Section 392 and was challenged.
Held: High Court upheld conviction, stating that fear of immediate violence is sufficient to constitute robbery.
Importance: Affirmed legal standards for proving robbery in chain snatching cases.
Summary Table for Quick Reference
| Case Name | Court/Year | Key Point | Legal Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. Maharashtra | SC, 1984 | Snatching = Robbery if force/fear used | Definition of robbery clarified |
| State of Punjab v. Gian Kaur | Punjab HC, 2013 | Chain snatching with force = robbery | Reinforced use of force as robbery element |
| Subhash v. Maharashtra | Bombay HC, 2012 | Group involvement = common intention applies | Liability for all under Section 34 IPC |
| Jitender v. Delhi | Delhi HC, 2018 | Public place doesn’t reduce gravity | Crowd does not negate fear/force |
| Mohan Lal v. Rajasthan | Rajasthan HC, 2016 | Injury during snatching = aggravated offense | Upgraded to Section 394 IPC |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. Ravichandran | Madras HC, 2019 | Habitual offenders get enhanced punishment | Use of Section 397 IPC for grievous hurt cases |
| Suresh v. Karnataka | Karnataka HC, 2014 | Snatching in public transport = robbery | Recognized public transport as vulnerable setting |
| Deepak v. Uttar Pradesh | Allahabad HC, 2020 | Fear of immediate violence = robbery | Legal test for proving robbery |
Important Points in Investigation and Trial
Victim’s testimony is crucial — they must identify the accused and describe the force or fear.
Eyewitness accounts help establish the use of force.
CCTV footage from public places increasingly helps prove chain snatching.
Medical examination may be relevant if injuries caused during snatching.
Recovery of stolen chain and possession by accused supports the case.
The distinction between theft and robbery must be clear: force or fear makes it robbery.
Conclusion
Chain snatching offences in India are treated as serious crimes, often categorized as robbery under Section 392 IPC, due to the use of force or threat. Courts have consistently taken a stringent approach towards such offences to deter offenders and protect public safety, especially the safety of women.
RELATED Blog
0 comments