New Delhi: A Delhi court has dismissed the appeal of a man, who had challenged the one year jail term awarded to him for snatching a woman’s gold chain in 2002, and modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment, observing that such incidents required stern action.
Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Bansal upheld the order of a magisterial court convicting Delhi resident Khalid for the offences of theft (section 379) and use of criminal force in attempt to commit theft (section 356) under the IPC.
“Khalid was involved in a case of chain snatching. Such incidents are on the rise these days. The culprits responsible for such incidents must be dealt with sternly,” the ASJ said.
The judge, while upholding his jail term, modified it from simple to rigorous imprisonment noting that the magistrate had taken a lenient view towards him.
“The magistrate had taken a lenient view and had imposed only simple imprisonment. Simple impriso ment will not be of any effect keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, it is ordered that Khalid shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for the same period. With this modification, order on sentence is also upheld,” the ASJ said.
The court was hearing an appeal, filed by Khalid, against a 2013 order of a magisterial court by which he was sentenced to one year simple imprisonment for snatching a gold chain of a woman from near her residence here in 2002. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs 3,000 by the trial court.
In his appeal, he had challenged the judgement contending that “it was arbitrary and bad in law”. He had also sought benefit of probation on the ground that he was young and has a family to look after.
As per the complainant Rama Jain, Khalid had snatched her gold chain weighing 13 grams when she was entering her house here.
When he tried to run away, after snatching the chain, he was caught by public which handed him to the police.
Khalid had denied the allegations and contended that he was falsely implicated in the case.
The sessions court, while rejecting his contentions, said that there was “no error, illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement”. P