A local court has sentenced two men to five years of rigorous imprisonment for snatching a labourer’s mobile phone, cash and Aadhaar card, observing that incidents of snatching are on the rise and have instilled fear among pedestrians and road users.
Additional sessions judge Amit Kumar Grover convicted Rahul Saini alias Chaila and Robin Kumar alias Jatt under Section 379-A(offence of snatching) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the duo had jointly committed the offence of snatching.
The court acquitted both accused of the charge under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) IPC, observing that once they were found to be the actual perpetrators of the snatching, the offence of dishonestly retaining stolen property was not attracted.
According to the prosecution, complainant Ram Avadh, a labourer employed with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in Rajpura, was returning home on foot after alighting from an auto near Hallomajra light point on the night of February 17, 2024. Around 9.40 pm, two youths allegedly snatched his Samsung Galaxy J2 Pro mobile phone – then costing somewhere between ₹2,399 and ₹4,699 – a plastic envelope containing ₹5,000 cash and his Aadhaar card before fleeing.
An FIR was registered at Mauli Jagran police station against unknown persons. A week later, police arrested Saini and Kumar, acting on secret information. The complainant identified both accused, following which police recovered the stolen mobile phone from Kumar and the complainant’s Aadhaar card along with ₹1,300 cash from Saini.
During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, including the complainant, investigating officers, police personnel involved in the recovery and the shop owner who produced the purchase bill of the stolen mobile phone.
The defence argued that the FIR contained no description of the assailants, the accused were arrested seven days after the incident, no independent public witness had been joined during the recovery proceedings and the recovered currency notes had not been identified. It also questioned the complainant’s testimony and alleged that the recoveries had been planted.
Rejecting these submissions, the court held that there is no legal requirement for an FIR to contain every physical detail of unknown offenders and found the complainant’s identification of the accused reliable. It further observed that the testimony of police officials could form the basis of conviction if found trustworthy, even in the absence of independent witnesses.
Holding that the prosecution had established that both accused, acting with common intention, had used criminal force while snatching the complainant’s belongings, the court convicted them.
Both convicts sought leniency, citing their financial hardship and family responsibilities. Saini told the court that he was a daily wage labourer supporting his wife and three minor children, while Kumar said he worked as an auto driver and part-time waiter and was the sole breadwinner for his family.
The court, however, declined to show leniency, observing that “crimes of snatching are on the rise and have acquired a magnitude of nuisance.” It further noted that such offences have “instilled continuous fear in the minds of road users, pedestrians and even those travelling on vehicles like two wheelers,” adding that the gravity of the offence had prompted the legislature to introduce Section 379-A IPC with a mandatory minimum punishment.
Finding no mitigating circumstances warranting a lighter sentence, the court sentenced both to the statutory minimum of five years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on each. In default of payment of fine, each will undergo 60 days simple imprisonment. The court also directed that the period already spent in custody during investigation and trial would be set off against their sentence in accordance with law.
