Hit-And-Run Offences In India
1. What is a Hit-and-Run Offence?
A Hit-and-Run refers to a road accident where the driver of a vehicle causes injury or death and then flees the scene without helping the victim or reporting the incident to authorities. It is a serious offence because it compounds the harm to victims by denying timely medical aid or justice.
2. Relevant Laws Governing Hit-And-Run
Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
This is the key provision dealing with hit-and-run cases.
If a driver, knowing they caused an accident, fails to stop or report to authorities, they can be punished.
Penalty: imprisonment up to 2 years or fine up to ₹5,000 or both (for death or grievous hurt).
If the driver is convicted of causing death due to rashness or negligence, penalties are higher under Section 304A IPC and other provisions.
Section 304A IPC:
Causing death by negligence (punishable with up to 2 years imprisonment or fine).
Section 279 IPC:
Rash driving or riding on a public way.
Section 337/338 IPC:
Causing hurt or grievous hurt by negligent driving.
3. Legal Obligations of Drivers Involved in Accidents
Stop the vehicle immediately.
Provide assistance to the injured person.
Inform the police immediately.
Failure to do so attracts penal consequences under MV Act and IPC.
4. Judicial Approach in Hit-and-Run Cases — Leading Case Laws
Case 1: Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1992 SC 1390
Facts: The accused fled after causing death by rash driving.
Held: The Supreme Court held that fleeing the scene worsens the offence and shows guilty conscience. Conviction under Section 304A IPC and Section 134 MV Act was justified.
Principle: Courts must punish hit-and-run cases strictly to deter reckless driving and ensure justice for victims.
Case 2: Sanjay Singh v. State of Haryana, (2010) 6 SCC 766
Facts: Accused was involved in a hit-and-run causing death and escaped.
Held: Supreme Court observed that abandoning victims and fleeing reflects moral turpitude and justifies enhanced punishment.
Principle: Courts should not show leniency to hit-and-run offenders.
Case 3: Surajdeo Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC 15
Facts: The accused fled the accident scene.
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized the duty of a driver to stop and render assistance. Failing this, hit-and-run is a separate offence attracting strict liability.
Principle: Offence under Section 134 MV Act is distinct from rash driving; both can be punished independently.
Case 4: Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2011) 13 SCC 303
Facts: The accused fled the spot after causing injury in an accident.
Held: Supreme Court confirmed that hit-and-run is a serious offence and courts should impose deterrent punishments. Compensation to victims is an important part of justice.
Principle: Courts can order compensation under Motor Vehicles Act and direct authorities to implement victim welfare schemes.
Case 5: Rameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2001) 3 SCC 765
Facts: The accused driver fled the scene after causing death by negligence.
Held: The Supreme Court held that conviction for hit-and-run (Section 134 MV Act) and for rash driving causing death (Section 304A IPC) can be concurrent and do not violate double jeopardy.
Principle: Punishment under both statutes can be cumulative to ensure deterrence.
Case 6: State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC 2187
Facts: Driver caused fatal accident and fled.
Held: Supreme Court underscored the public duty on drivers to stop and render help. Fleeing aggravates culpability.
Principle: Moral and legal obligation to assist accident victims is part of public safety norms.
5. Procedure Followed in Hit-and-Run Cases
Registration of FIR under MV Act and IPC.
Arrest of accused if evidence indicates fleeing after accident.
Investigation includes examination of witnesses, vehicle inspection, post-mortem (if death).
Forensic evidence like skid marks, CCTV footage, eyewitness testimony are critical.
Compensation claims under Section 166 & 140 of MV Act.
6. Recent Judicial Trends & Compensation
Courts increasingly emphasize victim compensation and social justice.
Directive to transport injured immediately to hospital.
Some High Courts have directed states to run victim assistance schemes.
Courts have ordered attachment of vehicles and enhanced penalties in repeat offences.
7. Summary Table of Legal Points and Cases
| Issue | Legal Provision | Case Law | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hit-and-run as distinct offence | Section 134 MV Act | Surajdeo Singh (2002) | Separate offence, strict liability |
| Duty to stop and assist | Section 134 MV Act, IPC | Sukhdev Singh (1992) | Moral & legal duty to stop; fleeing worsens offence |
| Punishment and deterrence | Sections 304A IPC & 134 MV | Sanjay Singh (2010) | No leniency; deterrence priority |
| Concurrent punishment | Sections 304A, 134 MV | Rameshwar Singh (2001) | Both punishments can be imposed simultaneously |
| Victim compensation | MV Act Sections 166,140 | Ajay Kumar Singh (2011) | Compensation as part of justice |
| Public duty emphasized | - | State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1988) | Duty to aid victims and report accident |
8. Practical Advice to Drivers and Police
Drivers must immediately stop, provide aid, and report the accident.
Police must investigate hit-and-run with urgency, seize vehicles and collect evidence.
Courts will impose stricter penalties on those who flee.
Victims and families can claim compensation from insurance and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT).
Conclusion
Hit-and-run cases are treated seriously by Indian courts because fleeing the scene not only violates traffic laws but also compounds the harm to victims. The Motor Vehicles Act alongside IPC provisions forms the backbone for prosecution, and courts have laid down strict guidelines to deter such behaviour. Compensation and victim welfare are equally emphasized to promote social justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments