Theft and snatching - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

← All Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita topics Past papers

On this page

1. The definition: section 303(1)
2. Dishonest intention
3. Movable property
4. Possession and consent
5. Moving
6. Punishment: section 303(2)
7. Snatching: section 304
8. Aggravated theft: sections 305 to 307
9. Problem
How this is examined

Cases checked to exist. Read the judgment before quoting a holding.

Every case cited here has been checked to exist — the citation resolves and names the right parties. The propositions attributed to each case have not been verified line by line against the judgment. Case names link through to the full judgment: read it before quoting a holding in an examination answer, and never carry a proposition from notes into court on trust.

Five words carry the definition. Dishonestly, movable, possession, without consent, moves. A good answer takes each in turn with an illustration from s.303. Two BNS changes earn extra marks: the new offence of snatching in s.304, and community service for a first theft under five thousand rupees where the property is returned.

1. The definition: section 303(1)

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 (old s.378 IPC). Each element can fail separately.

2. Dishonest intention

“Dishonestly” means doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another (s.2(7)). Wrongful gain and loss are defined in s.2(36) to (38), and include wrongfully retaining or keeping a person out of property. The intention must exist at the time of moving the property.

Temporary taking is enough. In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, 1962 INSC 296, AIR 1963 SC 1094, a Government officer took a file from the Secretariat to his house, gave it to a private party who substituted some papers, and brought it back the next day. The Court held this was theft: removing the file even for a short time caused wrongful loss to the Government, which was kept out of its property, and the taking need not be permanent.
In K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan, 1957 INSC 14, AIR 1957 SC 369, two Air Force cadets took a trainer aircraft without authority and flew it to Pakistan. The Court held that the intention to cause wrongful loss to the owner even temporarily was enough, and that the motive or the later fate of the aircraft did not matter.
Claim of right negatives dishonesty. A person who takes property in good faith believing it to be his own does not commit theft (illustration (p)). But a person who takes his own watch back from a pawnee without paying the loan does commit theft (illustration (k)), because the pawnee had a lawful right to hold it.

3. Movable property

Movable property includes property of every description except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth (s.2(21)). A thing attached to the earth becomes capable of theft as soon as it is severed (Explanation 1), and the same act that severs it may be the theft (Explanation 2): cutting down a tree on Z's land in order to take it is theft the moment it is severed (illustration (a)). Electricity is not movable property under the Penal Code; its dishonest abstraction is dealt with under the Electricity Act, 2003.

4. Possession and consent

The property must be taken out of someone's possession. A ring found on the highroad, in no one's possession, cannot be stolen; picking it up may be criminal misappropriation (illustration (g)). A ring lying on a table in Z's house is in Z's possession, and taking it is theft (illustration (f)). A warehouse-keeper to whom Z entrusts his plate has possession, so his sale of it is criminal breach of trust, not theft (illustration (e)); a servant who has only the care of his master's plate does not, so his running away with it is theft (illustration (d)).

Consent may be express or implied, and may be given by the person in possession or by anyone with authority (Explanation 5). A friend who takes a book from Z's library believing he has Z's implied consent to read it commits no theft (illustration (m)); a paramour who takes valuables from Z's wife, knowing she has no authority to give them, does (illustration (o)). Consent obtained by fear or misconception is no consent under s.28.

5. Moving

The offence is complete on the slightest movement made in order to the taking. Moving includes removing an obstacle or separating the thing from another (Explanation 3), and causing an animal to move, together with whatever it carries (Explanation 4): enticing Z's dog with bait, or driving a bullock loaded with treasure (illustrations (b) and (c)). Hiding a ring in Z's own house to take it later is theft at the moment it is first moved (illustration (h)).

6. Punishment: section 303(2)

Up to three years, or fine, or both. On a second or subsequent conviction, rigorous imprisonment of not less than one year and up to five years, and fine. The proviso is new: where the value of the stolen property is less than five thousand rupees, the accused is convicted for the first time, and the property or its value is returned, the punishment is community service.

7. Snatching: section 304

Theft is snatching if, in order to commit theft, the offender suddenly or quickly or forcibly seizes or secures or grabs or takes away any movable property from any person or from his possession. Punishment: up to three years and fine. The IPC had no such offence; a chain or phone snatched from a pedestrian was either simple theft or, if hurt was caused, robbery. Section 304 fills the gap for the common street crime where force is used on the property, not on the person.

Snatching or robbery? If, in snatching, the offender causes or attempts to cause hurt, wrongful restraint or fear of instant hurt to get or carry away the property, the theft becomes robbery under s.309(2). A sudden grab without hurt is snatching. A grab that knocks the victim down and injures her is robbery.

8. Aggravated theft: sections 305 to 307

s.305 (old s.380, widened): theft in a building, tent or vessel used as a dwelling or for custody of property; of a means of transport; of goods from a means of transport; of an idol or icon in a place of worship; or of property of the Government or a local authority. Up to seven years and fine. Vehicle theft and temple theft are new specific heads.
s.306 (old s.381): theft by a clerk or servant of property in the possession of his master or employer. Up to seven years and fine. The breach of the employer's confidence is the aggravation.
s.307 (old s.382): theft after preparation for causing death, hurt or restraint, or fear of them, in order to commit the theft, escape or retain the property. Rigorous imprisonment up to ten years. A carrying a loaded pistol to use if Z resists, or a pickpocket posting companions to restrain Z, are the illustrations.

9. Problem

A's car is lawfully detained by B, a mechanic, until A pays the repair bill. At night A takes the car from B's garage with a spare key, meaning to pay later.

Issue. Whether a person can commit theft of his own property.

Law. Theft is a taking out of possession, not out of ownership. Illustration (j) to s.303 says that if Z lawfully retains A's watch as security for a repair debt and A takes it to deprive Z of the security, A commits theft. A mechanic has a lien on goods he has repaired.

Application. B was in lawful possession under his lien. A took the car without B's consent, intending to deprive B of his security, which is a wrongful loss to B. His intention to pay later does not cure the dishonesty, just as a temporary taking was enough in Pyare Lal Bhargava.

Conclusion. A has committed theft. A car used to carry passengers is a means of transport, so the aggravated punishment in s.305(b) is available; otherwise s.303(2) applies. If B had no lien because the bill was already paid, A's taking would not be dishonest and there would be no theft (illustration (i)).

How this is examined

January 2026: “What is theft and how does it differ from extortion?” (10 marks). Write the definition, the five elements with illustrations and the two cases, the punishment with the community-service proviso, and snatching. Then add the distinction from extortion set out in the note on extortion, robbery and dacoity: consent, the use of fear, the kind of property, and delivery by the victim.