Follow Us
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, August 6
Dubbing chain snatching a “very grievous offence”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that leniency cannot be shown while sentencing the convicts. The judgment came in a case where a chain snatcher was sentenced to one year and four months of imprisonment by a Ropar court.
Taking up the petition filed by Gurjant Singh against the state of Punjab, Justice Surinder Gupta asserted that those snatching chains and purses of women going on roads or streets not only threatened the victims’ liberty and security, but also created an atmosphere of terror in society.
“Such type of criminals are required to be dealt with sternly. The courts below have already taken a lenient view regarding the quantum of sentence by awarding rigorous imprisonment for one year four months; as such, I find no reason to take a further lenient view in this matter,” Justice Gupta added.
Gurjant Singh was initially convicted and sentenced for “theft after preparation for causing death, hurt or restraint” under Section 382 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by a Ropar judicial magistrate. The judgment was affirmed by an Additional Sessions Judge following which he moved the High Court.
The prosecution had told the court that complainant Ivreet Kaur was going towards her house around 5 pm in September 2011 when the pillion rider on a “Bullet” snatched a gold chain she as wearing. The incident occurred near Khalsa Girls College, Morinda.
The complainant, however, swiftly pulled down the pillion rider, while the other rider ran away from the spot. On her hue and cry, shopkeepers from the nearby area gathered at the spot and nabbed the person pulled down by the complainant.
On enquiry, he disclosed his name as Gurjant Singh and the name of the co-accused as Mandeep Singh. He also disclosed the number of the motorcycle, while adding that the rear number plate did not carry the registration number, but a sticker of AK47. The police also reached the spot and took the petitioner into custody.
Co-accused Mandeep Singh expired during the trial. As such, proceedings against him were dropped. Before the trial court, the complainant supported the prosecution case and identified the petitioner in the court.
Refusing to interfere with the orders of the courts below, Justice Gupta added that the complainant caught hold of the petitioner because of her alertness. He was arrested on the spot. As such, there was no dispute regarding his identity. The courts below found the statement of the complainant worthy of reliance. Even otherwise, the complainant had no reason to falsely implicate the petitioner.
2
5
7