‘Threatens Safety Of Women, Deserves No Leniency’: Haryana Court Sentences Man To 10 Yrs Jail For Snatching 61-Yr-Old Woman’s Earring

A court in Haryana recently sentenced a man to rigorous imprisonment of ten years and imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on him for snatching the earring of a 61-year old woman. The woman had suffered injuries in her left ear in the attack.

Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, Nishant Sharma while sentencing the convict, said:

“The offence of snatching is on a rapid rise may be due to high rate of unemployment or due to low probability of being caught. In any case, the offence is unpardonable as it is a direct threat to the safety and security of ordinary citizens especially women. Thus, the offence committed by the convict does not deserve any leniency from the Court.”

The accused had been booked by the police under Section 379B of the IPC (snatching with hurt, wrongful restraint or fear of hurt).

As per the complainant, she was bathing her cattle in the street outside her house when a motor-cycle rider snatched away her earring from the left ear. He then fled away from the spot on the motorcycle. The medical examination of the woman confirmed that there was physical assault with a lacerated wound and splitting of her left ear.

The accused, however, contended that he was falsely implicated in the present case.

Basing its decision on the prosecution evidence, the statement of the complainant and the medical evidence, the accused was found guilty of the offence.

During the determination of the quantum of the sentence, the accused submitted that he was a poor person. The court was told his father had expired and he had an old mother to look-after and there was no one else in the family to care for her.

The counsel representing the accused, therefore, submitted that a lenient view may be taken against him so that the family of convict does not go through the ordeal of suffering.

The Court, however, rejected the arguments. Noting the increasing instances of snatching and the perception that such offences go unpunished, the Court passed the following order:

“The convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 25,000. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.”

"The period for which the convict has remained in custody during the pendency of the trial as an accused, shall set off against the sentence awarded," added the Court.

Case Title: State v. Shankar