INTRODUCTION
Among other things, one of the main issues that arise in criminal law is the protection of property rights. Under the traditional system of criminal law, crimes like theft and robbery used to fall under the ambit of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, due to some remarkable amendments made in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, this field of law has seen some considerable development. One such significant development has been the differentiation of theft from snatching. In the Indian Penal Code, there was no provision for ‘snatching’ per se. Instead, it had been considered as an act of theft under sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. But in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the concept of ‘snatching’ has been differentiated as an independent offence under section 304.
While both have similarities in terms of nature of crime, they vary in terms of the means by which they can be executed. Theft can be described as the act of taking property that belongs to someone else in an unlawful manner, without the consent of the owner, and usually, such acts are performed without physical force. In contrast, snatching means forcibly or quickly taking away something directly from an individual. Often accompanied by the elements of surprise, fear or minor violence. To meet the increasing instances of theft in the form of chain snatching, the BNS has formulated specific guidelines to deal with such cases in a different manner compared to ordinary thefts. In this way, the law can provide more stringent measures against such activities. In this context, it becomes extremely significant to note that while classifying theft from snatching, one must take into account both their legal classification as well as the punishment associated with them.
Statutory Definitions of Theft and Snatching:
The legal definition of theft, as provided under the section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, states that “whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.”
From the above definition under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the essential element of theft include
- Dishonest intention,
- taking of movable property,
- removal from another’s possession, and
- absence of consent
In contrast, the legal definition of snatching under Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita states that “Theft is snatching if, in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or takes away from any person, or from his possession, any movable property.”
The essential elements of snatching can be understood from the above definition, which includes
- Dishonest intention,
- taking of movable property,
- absence of consent, and
- sudden, quick or forceful seizure of such property.
Comparative Analysis of Theft and Snatching
Theft and Snatching are differentiated in several ways, such as-
- Snatching is a particular type of theft. An act of theft constitutes snatching when it involves sudden and forceful taking of property.
- Snatching involves a swift act of seizing the property.
- Theft may be committed even when there is no immediate awareness on the part of the person affected.
- Snatching requires personal encounters with the individual.
- Snatching is a more serious offense since it is committed instantly.
It is quite clear to understand the difference between theft and snatching by means of an example. Suppose that when a particular person picks up a mobile phone out of the bag of another person without his/her knowledge while traveling in a public vehicle, then it would be considered as theft because it has been performed in such a way that no force has been used in it. But if the same person takes away the mobile phone by pulling it directly from the hands of the other person, then it would be snatched since it will include elements of suddenness and force. So, both acts may have similarity in that both are dishonest acts in which property is taken away but snatching becomes relatively more serious than theft.
Judicial Insights
In the case of Sohail Faizan vs State 27 january 2026, The accused robbed the mobile phone of the victim at Moti Nagar and injured the victim while committing robbery. The mobile phone was confiscated by the police and the statement was recorded. The case was heard under Sections 304 BNS (Snatching) and Section 309(6) BNS (hurt during robbery).
In the case of K.N. Mehra vs State of Rajasthan 1957, AIR 369, the Supreme Court gave its judgment on an issue where the appellants along with one more person, robbed the airplane belonging to Indian Air Force and escaped with the plane to Pakistan. The court ruled that even though they did not engage in physical robbery of cash or property, stealing an airplane without permission, with dishonest intent, constitutes theft according to law.
From the analysis of the above two cases, it can be said that theft is the taking of another person’s movable property without his/her consent. Nonetheless, not all theft cases are alike. If there is an immediate and direct seizing of the property from another person by using force, the crime is called snatching. Therefore, snatching refers to a special type of theft, which is different from theft due to its nature.
Conclusion
At the end, therefore, it can be seen that whereas theft and snatching are crimes involving the illegal transfer of movable property, there are distinct differences between them that have been considered by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Theft concerns itself essentially with movement of property and does not involve the presence of the owner during the commission of the crime and does not lead to immediate fear of the owner. Snatching, as an independent offence, on the other hand, involves the presence of the owner during the commission of the crime and involves the use of force.
What needs to be emphasized at this point is the fact that snatching is not just about the transfer of property but also an assault on the safety of the person. While theft could be such that it might not be detected instantly, snatching is an instant crime and involves the presence of the owner.
The above-mentioned differences are significant in determining appropriate law enforcement, legislation, and awareness among the general public. This will guarantee that the offence is correctly categorized based on its level of seriousness, and also make the point that not only is the law against stealing, but the method in which the theft was committed is also considered. Thus, although theft and snatchings seem to be quite similar offences at first glance, one of the key distinguishing features between the two is the use of force and threat.
Share this Post
