Three get 5-year jail for snatching phone in Panchkula
The court of district and sessions judge Ved Parkash Sirohi also imposed a fine of ₹26,000 on the convicts identified as Neeraj Kumar alias Kaku, 20, who works as a waiter, Saurabh Tiwari, 21, who works with Rapido, and Tayab, 18, all residents of Kishangarh, Chandigarh.
A local court awarded five years’ jail to three persons, including a waiter and a Rapido driver, convicted of snatching a mobile phone in February last year.
A local court awarded five years’ jail to three persons, including a waiter and a Rapido driver, convicted of snatching a mobile phone in February last year. (Shutterstock)
The court of district and sessions judge Ved Parkash Sirohi also imposed a fine of ₹26,000 on the convicts identified as Neeraj Kumar alias Kaku, 20, who works as a waiter, Saurabh Tiwari, 21, who works with Rapido, and Tayab, 18, all residents of Kishangarh, Chandigarh.
Complainant Sandeep Gill, 36, of Sector 15, Panchkula, told the police that on February 6, 2023, he had left for work around 8.45 am on his cycle. When he reached the Sector 15/16 roundabout in Panchkula, he got a call from home. While he was answering the call, three men came on a motorcycle and snatched his cellphone.
On his complaint, a case under Section 379A (snatching) of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Sector 14 police station in Panchkula.
The convicts prayed for leniency, citing that they have families to support, besides they have no criminal history.
Public prosecutor Arvind Kumar, however, sought stringent punishment, stating that “in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, the convicts do not deserve any leniency and should be awarded stringent punishment to send out a strong message to other like-minded people in the society.”
The court, in its order, held, “The convicts, in furtherance of their common intention, snatched the cellphone of Sandeep Gill, but when it was recovered, two SIM cards were missing and none of the convicts helped recover it. As such, the convicts do not deserve any leniency in the matter of sentence.”