BNS Section 304 — Snatching (New Offence, No Central IPC Equivalent)

In India, Section 304 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) makes snatching a distinct offence from 1 July 2024: theft by suddenly, quickly or forcibly seizing movable property from a person or his possession. It carries up to three years' imprisonment and fine. The central Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) had no equivalent section.

At a glance

What changed

Changes are measured against the IPC sections used for the same conduct and against the two State insertions.

• New — A statutory definition in s.304(1) (text below). Nothing in the central IPC defined the conduct.
• New — A dedicated punishment. Section 304(2): up to three years, "and shall also be liable to fine". IPC s.379 read "or with fine, or with both", which allowed fine alone. The three-year ceiling equals s.379.
• New — Classification: the BNSS First Schedule lists "304(2) Snatching" as cognizable, non-bailable, any Magistrate — the same as IPC s.379 under the CrPC.
• Narrowed (compared with Gujarat s.379A) — Gujarat's s.379A(1) required that the offender "makes or attempt to make escape with such property". BNS s.304(1) contains no escape element. Gujarat also used "physical possession"; the BNS says "his possession".
• Modified (compared with Gujarat ss.379A–379B) — Punishment is far lower. Gujarat s.379A(3) prescribed rigorous imprisonment of not less than seven years up to ten years, with fine up to twenty-five thousand rupees. Section 379A(2) punished an attempt with five to ten years. Section 379A(4) added up to three years where hurt, wrongful restraint or fear of hurt was caused to effect escape. BNS s.304(2) has no minimum term.
• Modified (compared with Tripura s.382A) — Tripura defined snatching as theft "stealthily from a person or through assault or by using criminal force and thereby causes hurt or endangers the life of that person". Section 382B punished it with not less than seven years up to ten years "or with fine or with both". BNS s.304 does not require hurt or danger to life.
• Omitted — An attempt provision. Gujarat's s.379A(2) punished attempted snatching expressly. BNS s.304 does not, so attempts fall to the general provisions (see "How it works").
• New (related) — BNS s.112(1) names "snatching" among the acts that make up petty organised crime when committed by a member of a group or gang. Section 112(2) punishes that with one to seven years and fine.

Statutory text (relevant extract)

IPC s.379 (extract) — "Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

IPC s.379A(1), as inserted for Gujarat (extract) — "Whoever, with the intention to commit theft, suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away from any person or from his physical possession any moveable property, and makes or attempt to make escape with such property, is said to commit snatching." (Gujarat Act 6 of 2019, s. 2.)

IPC s.382A, as inserted for Tripura (extract) — "Whoever commits theft stealthily from a person or through assault or by using criminal force and thereby causes hurt or endangers the life of that person is said to commit the offence of 'Snatching'." (Tripura Act 4 of 2019, s. 2.)

BNS s.304 (full text)

(1) Theft is snatching if, in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away from any person or from his possession any movable property.

(2) Whoever commits snatching, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The BNS definition repeats Gujarat's "suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away" but drops its escape requirement.

How it works — ingredients of the offence

Section 304(1) opens with "Theft is snatching if", so every snatching is first a theft. The prosecution must prove the elements of theft under BNS s.303(1), and then the added features in s.304(1).

1. Dishonest intention (s.303(1)) — "dishonestly" under s.2(7) means intending wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.
2. Movable property (s.2(21)) — property of every description except land and things attached to the earth: a chain, phone, bag or wallet.
3. Out of a person's possession, without consent (s.303(1)) — Explanation 5 to s.303 says consent may be express or implied.
4. Moving the property (s.303(1)) — in order to such taking.
5. "In order to commit theft" (s.304(1)) — the snatching act must be the means of the theft.
6. Manner: "suddenly or quickly or forcibly" (s.304(1)) — the adverbs are joined by "or", so on a plain reading any one is enough.
7. Act: "seizes or secures or grabs or takes away" (s.304(1)) — again alternatives.
8. Source: "from any person or from his possession" (s.304(1)) — from the body or hand, or from his possession more broadly.

Worked examples from the Act's own illustrations:

• No dishonesty, no snatching. Illustration (i) to s.303 describes A taking his own watch "by force out of Z's hand" from a jeweller who has no lawful claim to keep it. The Act says A "has not committed theft" because what he did "was not done dishonestly", though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault. Because snatching must first be theft, the same facts are not snatching either — a reading of s.304(1) with s.303.
• Restraint turns theft into robbery. Illustration (a) to s.309 describes A holding Z down and taking Z's money and jewels. A has "voluntarily caused wrongful restraint" in order to commit the theft, so the Act says A has committed robbery. Holding the victim down goes beyond the "seizes or grabs" of s.304(1) and meets s.309(2).

Where snatching sits among neighbouring offences:

Attempts. Section 304 has no attempt limb. On a reading of the text, an attempted snatching falls under BNS s.62. That section applies "where no express provision is made" and allows up to one-half of the longest term for the offence — here, up to eighteen months — or fine, or both. Where the attempt involves assault or criminal force on the person wearing or carrying the property, BNS s.134 also fits on its words.

What this means in practice

For the victim. Snatching is cognizable, so information about it is recorded as an FIR under BNSS s.173. Tell the officer how the property was taken (a grab, a pull, a cut strap); whether you were pushed, held, struck or threatened, and when — before, during or while the offender was getting away; and any injury, since "hurt" under BNS s.114 means bodily pain, disease or infirmity. Those facts decide which section applies.

For the investigating officer. The Schedule's explanatory note defines "cognizable" as an offence for which a police officer may arrest without warrant. Record force and timing precisely: hurt or wrongful restraint caused "for that end" points to s.309 (robbery), a group or gang element to s.112. Dishonest intention and the victim's possession, required by s.303(1), need evidence of their own.

For the accused. The offence is non-bailable, so bail is at the court's discretion under BNSS s.480, not a right under s.478; anticipatory bail is under s.482. The key defence question is often classification: if the charge is robbery, test whether the evidence shows hurt, restraint or fear caused "for that end" (see Venu, below). If it does not, the facts may fit s.304(2), with a three-year ceiling instead of ten.

For advocates in Gujarat and Tripura. BNS s.358(1) repeals "The Indian Penal Code". On a reading, the State-inserted sections were part of that Code as it applied in those States, so their five- and seven-year minimum terms govern only acts before 1 July 2024, through s.358(2).

Judgments that still matter

No Supreme Court judgment applying BNS s.304 was read for this page; the two below construe words s.304 depends on.

Venu @ Venugopal v. State of Karnataka, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 224 (2008 INSC 122) — decided 30 January 2008 by Dr. Arijit Pasayat and P. Sathasivam JJ. The appellants were convicted of robbery for robbing two victims on a highway at night while threatening them with a knife. In appeal, counsel argued that no knife was used and that the victim raised a hue and cry "when accused persons tried to snatch the stolen articles from her". The Court set out the ingredients of robbery (para 6). It said robbery "is only an aggravated form of offence of theft or extortion" and that "Violence must be in course of theft and not subsequently" (para 8). It read "for that end" in s.390 IPC to mean that the hurt "must be with the object of facilitating the committing of the theft or must be caused while the offender is committing theft or is carrying away or is attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft" (para 10). The appeal was dismissed. Why it matters: s.309(2) BNS repeats "for that end" in the same sentence structure as s.390 IPC. On a reading of the text, Venu therefore marks the line between s.304 snatching and s.309 robbery.

Hazari Lal v. State of Bihar, [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 419 (1962 INSC 277) — decided 27 September 1962 by a bench of Jafer Imam, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and J.R. Mudholkar JJ; judgment delivered by Mudholkar J. A dealer snatched two account books from the hands of an inspecting sales-tax officer. The Court upheld his conviction under s.353 IPC (criminal force to deter a public servant). It held that by snatching the books the appellant "necessarily caused a jerk to the hand or hands" of the officer, causing motion within s.349 IPC. It added that the natural effect of snatching "would be to affect the sense of feeling" of the hands, so the act "amounts to use of force". Why it matters: s.128 BNS carries over the definition of "force" in s.349 IPC with drafting changes only. On a reading, a snatch from the hand will ordinarily involve "force" and, without consent, "criminal force" under s.129 — which is why BNS s.134 sits next to s.304 for attempts. Hazari Lal was not a theft case and does not decide what "forcibly" means in s.304(1).

Which law applies to your case

Section 358(2) BNS provides that the repeal of the IPC does not affect any penalty or punishment incurred for offences committed against it, and that proceedings may be instituted or continued "as if that Code had not been repealed". Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a penalty greater than the one available under the law in force when the offence was committed. On a reading of those provisions, a snatching before 1 July 2024 is charged under the IPC section that fitted the facts, and BNS s.304 governs acts on or after that date. Section 531(2)(a) BNSS separately keeps investigations, inquiries and trials pending on 1 July 2024 under the CrPC. See Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies.

Frequently asked questions

Did the IPC have an offence of snatching? Not in the central Indian Penal Code, 1860. Snatching was charged under Section 379 (theft), Section 356 (assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of property carried by a person) or Section 392 (robbery), depending on the facts. Gujarat inserted Sections 379A–379B (Gujarat Act 6 of 2019) and Tripura inserted Sections 382A–382B (Tripura Act 4 of 2019) into the IPC as it applied in those States.

What is the punishment for snatching under BNS Section 304? Section 304(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 provides imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and the offender shall also be liable to fine. No minimum term is prescribed. The Gujarat IPC amendment, by contrast, prescribed rigorous imprisonment of not less than seven years for committing snatching.

Is snatching bailable under the BNS? No. The First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 classifies BNS Section 304(2) as cognizable, non-bailable and triable by any Magistrate. Bail is therefore a matter for the court under BNSS Section 480, not a right under Section 478.

What must the prosecution prove for snatching? Under BNS Section 304(1) the prosecution must first prove theft as defined in Section 303(1): a dishonest intention to take movable property out of a person's possession without consent, and moving it for that purpose. It must then prove that, in order to commit that theft, the accused suddenly or quickly or forcibly seized, secured, grabbed or took away the property from a person or from his possession.

When does snatching become robbery? Under BNS Section 309(2), theft is robbery if, in order to commit it, in committing it, or in carrying away the property, the offender for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of any of them. The Supreme Court in Venu v. State of Karnataka (2008) read 'for that end' as requiring the hurt to facilitate the theft or occur while committing it or carrying the property away. Robbery carries rigorous imprisonment up to ten years under Section 309(4).

Which law applies to a snatching before 1 July 2024? BNS Section 358(2) keeps penalties and punishments incurred under the repealed IPC alive and lets proceedings continue as if that Code had not been repealed, and Article 20(1) of the Constitution bars a heavier penalty than the law in force when the act was done. On a reading of those provisions, a snatching before 1 July 2024 is charged under the IPC section that fitted the facts, and BNS Section 304 applies to acts on or after that date.

Is an attempt to snatch an offence? BNS Section 304 has no attempt sub-section. On a reading of the text, an attempt falls under BNS Section 62 (up to one-half of the longest term for the offence, or fine, or both), or under BNS Section 134 where the offender assaults or uses criminal force on the person while attempting to steal property that person is wearing or carrying (up to two years, or fine, or both).

Related

• Theft — IPC Sections 378–382 vs BNS Section 303 onwards
• Robbery and dacoity — IPC Sections 392–395 vs BNS Sections 309–310
• Organised crime — new BNS provisions
• Bail provisions — old vs new
• Offence before 1 July 2024 — which law applies
• Section 511 IPC vs Section 62 BNS — Attempt to Commit Offences
• Sections 349–358 IPC vs Sections 128–136 BNS — Assault and Criminal Force

Sources

Acts and sections read (primary text):

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Gazette of India, CG-DL-E-25122023-250883): ss.2(7), 2(21), 62, 112, 114, 128, 129, 134, 303, 304, 309, 358.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (original text with State amendments): ss.356, 378, 379, 382, 390, 392; Gujarat State amendment inserting ss.379A–379B (Gujarat Act 6 of 2019, s. 2); Tripura State amendment inserting ss.382A–382B (Tripura Act 4 of 2019, s. 2).
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: ss.173, 478, 480, 482, 531(2)(a); First Schedule entries for BNS ss.134, 303(2), 304(2), 309(4).
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: First Schedule entries for IPC ss.356, 379, 392.
• Constitution of India: Article 20(1).

Judgments read (Supreme Court, judgment text):

• Venu @ Venugopal v. State of Karnataka, [2008] 2 S.C.R. 224 — corpus file 2008_2_224_231_EN.md.
• Hazari Lal v. State of Bihar, [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 419 — corpus file S_1963_1_419_429_EN.md.

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.