A local court has awarded five years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) to a man convicted in a mobile snatching incident that took place in 2022.
The complainant, Kulwinder Lal of Deep Complex, Hallomajra, who was working as a mechanic in Panchkula, alleged that on April 14, 2022, at about 10.05 pm, after having dinner at Laali Dhaba, Ram Darbar, he was returning to his house. Near his residence, two youths approached him on foot from the front side. One of them caught hold of him while the other snatched his mobile phone and fled towards Ram Darbar.
Based on his statement, an FIR was registered under Section 379-A (snatching) of the IPC against two unknown persons.
During investigation, on April 22, 2022, accused Sunil was arrested on the identification of the complainant and the snatched mobile phone was recovered from him. The offence under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property) of IPC was also added.
Upon completion of other formalities, a challan against Sunil was presented in court. He was charged under Sections 379-A and 411 of the IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its charges, including the complainant and some police officials.
The accused, Sunil, in his statement pleaded that he was falsely implicated. His defence counsel argued that no test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution and that there was a delay of five days in registration of the FIR, which was not explained by the prosecution.
After evaluating the evidence, the court observed that the prosecution had successfully proved that the accused, along with another person, had committed the snatching.
{{/usCountry}}After evaluating the evidence, the court observed that the prosecution had successfully proved that the accused, along with another person, had committed the snatching.
{{/usCountry}}Sunil was convicted under Sections 379-A and 411 of the IPC.
At the time of pronouncing the quantum of sentence, the convict prayed for leniency, stating that he was a painter by profession and had old parents and a wife who were dependent upon him for their livelihood.
However, the court of additional sessions judge Harpreet Kaur observed, “Snatching is one of the biggest street crimes which has created an element of fear and trauma in the mind of common man, especially in women and senior citizens. The snatching cases are being reported almost every passing day. Therefore, in order to curb this menace, it is required to be dealt with the same with stern hands. Showing leniency in such cases is nothing but encouraging the culprit to commit more offences.” She directed that the convict did not deserve any leniency.
Under Section 379-A, Sunil was sentenced to five years RI and fined ₹25,000. Under Section 411, he was sentenced to two years RI and fined ₹2,000. Both sentences will run concurrently.