Hit-And-Run Cases
What is a Hit-and-Run Case
A hit-and-run occurs when a person causes a motor vehicle accident and leaves the scene without identifying themselves or assisting the victim, especially when injury or death has occurred.
⚖️ Relevant Legal Provisions in India
1. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 304A IPC – Causing death by negligence (up to 2 years imprisonment or fine or both).
Section 279 IPC – Rash and negligent driving.
Section 338 IPC – Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life.
Section 337 IPC – Causing hurt by an act endangering life.
Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Duty of the driver to stop and give information.
🧑⚖️ Key Case Laws on Hit-and-Run Cases (Explained in Detail)
1. State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan
Citation: 2002 (2) BOMCR 417
🔹 Background:
Bollywood actor Salman Khan was accused of running over people sleeping on a footpath in Mumbai in 2002, killing one person and injuring others.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Was the accused driving the vehicle and was he under the influence of alcohol? Did he flee the scene?
🔹 Court Findings:
Initial charges were under Section 304-A (negligence).
Later, based on evidence (witness testimony, forensic reports), charges were altered to Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) due to knowledge of probable danger.
The actor was accused of not stopping to help, violating Section 134 of the MV Act.
🔹 Outcome:
After a lengthy legal battle, he was convicted in the trial court but later acquitted by the Bombay High Court due to inconsistencies in evidence. This case drew attention to celebrity trials, evidence tampering, and due process in hit-and-run cases.
2. Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: (2012) 2 SCC 648
🔹 Background:
The accused ran over seven people sleeping on the footpath in Mumbai, causing multiple deaths and injuries.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Was this a case of negligence or culpable homicide? Did the driver knowingly take the risk?
🔹 Court Findings:
The Supreme Court ruled that drunken driving with knowledge of possible consequences could attract Section 304 Part II IPC, not just Section 304A.
The accused was found to have fled the scene — a classic hit-and-run.
🔹 Outcome:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the seriousness of reckless driving, especially under intoxication. Hit-and-run aggravated the gravity of the offence.
3. Nagaraja Rao v. CBI
Citation: (2015) 4 SCC 302
🔹 Background:
This case involved a government servant who caused a fatal accident and attempted to escape accountability.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Whether a public servant causing death due to reckless driving and fleeing the scene can escape criminal liability.
🔹 Court Findings:
The accused was held liable under Sections 304A and 279 IPC, as well as Section 134 of MV Act.
The act of fleeing the scene showed disregard for the victim’s life, which was taken into account while sentencing.
🔹 Outcome:
The conviction was upheld, and the Supreme Court emphasized that hit-and-run behaviour is an aggravating factor in sentencing.
4. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar
Citation: AIR 2005 SC 326
🔹 Background:
This was a civil case involving compensation for a hit-and-run by a state transport bus.
🔹 Legal Issue:
What is the responsibility of the vehicle owner/driver in hit-and-run cases in civil compensation?
🔹 Court Findings:
The SC held that even if identity is unknown, compensation can be awarded under Section 161 of the MV Act through the Hit and Run Compensation Scheme.
This ruling stressed the vicarious liability of employers (state transport).
🔹 Outcome:
Victim’s family was granted compensation. The case clarified that civil remedies are available even if criminal prosecution is unclear or pending.
5. Sanjay Dutt v. State (Hit-and-Run Reference in TADA Case)
Citation: (2013) 6 SCC 336
🔹 Background:
While this case primarily involved the 1993 Bombay blasts, the court referenced the importance of drivers not fleeing the scene in accidents.
🔹 Legal Issue:
The SC observed in obiter dicta (non-binding remarks) about how evading responsibility worsens the legal consequences in criminal cases like hit-and-run.
🔹 Outcome:
Though not a direct hit-and-run case, this reference reinforced the judiciary’s strong view against fleeing accident scenes.
6. Ravindra v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2009 (13) SCC 622
🔹 Background:
The accused caused an accident that resulted in death and did not stop to help the victim.
🔹 Legal Issue:
Whether failure to assist after the accident enhances criminal liability.
🔹 Court Findings:
Fleeing from the scene was considered deliberate negligence.
The SC held that the driver had a moral and legal duty to help the injured.
🔹 Outcome:
Conviction upheld under Section 304A and the MV Act. The court stressed that failure to provide aid shows criminal indifference.
📝 Key Legal Takeaways
Negligence vs. Culpable Homicide:
Mere negligence = Section 304A IPC.
Knowledge of danger + reckless disregard = Section 304 Part II IPC (more serious).
Fleeing the Scene is an Aggravating Factor:
Courts view hit-and-run behaviour as showing lack of remorse and moral depravity.
It can enhance sentencing and impact bail decisions.
Compensation Mechanisms:
Victims (or their families) can claim compensation under:
Section 161, MV Act (Hit-and-Run Scheme)
Section 163A / 166 of MV Act (for known vehicles).
Obligation to Help:
Section 134 MV Act imposes a duty on drivers to stop and provide aid.
Violation may result in criminal prosecution.
✅ Conclusion
Hit-and-run cases are not merely accidents — they reflect moral and legal irresponsibility. Indian courts have repeatedly clarified that fleeing the accident scene without helping victims aggravates criminal liability. Through various judgments, the judiciary has tried to balance penal consequences with compensation for victims, reflecting a shift toward victim-centric justice.
RELATED Blog
comments