Criminal Liability For Chain Snatching In Urban Centres
Legal Framework
Theft (IPC § 379 / Nepal equivalent) – Taking someone’s property without consent.
Robbery (IPC § 390‑392 / Nepal) – Theft with use or threat of force.
Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft (IPC § 356 / Nepal) – Attempting theft that involves touching, pushing, or minor injuries.
Organised crime statutes (for serial offenders / gangs) – When chain‑snatching is done systematically by a gang.
Aggravated penalties – If the victim is injured, elderly, or vulnerable, courts impose higher sentences.
Case 1: Kathmandu – Solo Chain Snatching Conviction
Facts:
A young man snatched a gold chain from a woman walking in Thamel, Kathmandu. He was caught immediately by local police.
Legal Issues:
Whether the act constitutes theft or robbery.
Determining intent and whether force was applied.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court found that the act involved minimal force but caused fear.
Convicted under criminal code provisions for theft with criminal force.
Sentenced to 3 years imprisonment and fine.
Significance:
Even minimal force during snatching is sufficient for criminal liability.
Victim fear is considered in sentencing.
Case 2: Lalitpur – Gang Chain Snatching
Facts:
A gang of three on a motorcycle snatched multiple gold chains from women in Patan market over two weeks. Police recovered some stolen chains and apprehended two gang members.
Legal Issues:
Whether repeated offences by a gang fall under organised crime.
Liability of accomplices who did not directly snatch but acted as lookouts.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court convicted all members under provisions for theft, robbery, and aiding criminal activity.
Sentences ranged from 5 to 8 years imprisonment.
Ordered confiscation of the motorcycle used in offences.
Significance:
Highlights joint liability in gang crimes.
Serial offenders face higher sentences due to public safety concerns.
Case 3: Kathmandu – Attempted Chain Snatching with Injury
Facts:
An accused tried to snatch a chain from a 60-year-old woman in a crowded street. The woman resisted and sustained minor injuries. The accused fled but was caught.
Legal Issues:
Whether causing injury elevates theft to robbery.
Determining punishment considering victim’s age and injury.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court held that the use of force causing injury qualified as robbery.
Convicted under criminal code sections for robbery and assault.
Sentenced to 6 years imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution.
Significance:
Injury to victim escalates severity of chain-snatching offence.
Age and vulnerability of victim are aggravating factors.
Case 4: Bhaktapur – Acquittal Due to Lack of Evidence
Facts:
An accused was charged with snatching a gold chain in Bhaktapur market. No witnesses could identify him clearly, and chain was never recovered.
Legal Issues:
Standard of proof required for conviction.
Whether suspicion alone is sufficient.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence.
Emphasized need for credible witness testimony and recovery of stolen property.
Significance:
Reinforces that chain-snatching prosecutions require concrete evidence, not assumptions.
Case 5: Pokhara – Chain Snatching by Two-Wheeler Duo
Facts:
Two young men on a motorbike snatched a gold chain from a tourist near Lakeside, Pokhara. CCTV footage captured the act.
Legal Issues:
Determining liability of both pillion rider and driver.
Use of technological evidence in proving chain-snatching.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court convicted both for theft and aiding criminal act.
Sentenced to 4 years imprisonment each.
Significance:
Both participants in the act are equally liable.
CCTV and technology evidence significantly strengthen prosecution.
Case 6: Kathmandu – Serial Chain Snatcher Targeting Tourists
Facts:
A serial offender snatched chains from multiple foreign tourists over a month in Thamel area. Police traced him through pattern analysis and apprehended him.
Legal Issues:
Serial nature of offences and targeting vulnerable tourists.
Determination of cumulative sentence for multiple offences.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court treated the offences as continuous criminal conduct.
Sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with fines for each offence.
Significance:
Serial offenders face cumulative and higher penalties.
Public interest and safety strongly influence sentencing.
Key Takeaways from All Cases
Force or threat escalates theft to robbery.
Gang or serial offenders face significantly higher penalties.
Both direct snatcher and accomplice are liable.
Victim’s vulnerability (age, tourist, female) is an aggravating factor.
Evidence (CCTV, recovery, witness statements) is crucial for conviction.
Acquittals occur when evidence is weak, even if suspicion is strong.
RELATED Blog
comments