Hit And Run Offences
Hit and Run Offences
Legal Framework (India)
Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Requires the driver involved in an accident causing injury/death to stop, provide assistance, and report the accident.
Section 304A IPC (rash or negligent driving causing death)
Section 279 IPC (rash driving)
Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder, if death is caused by rash driving)
Failure to comply with these provisions leads to hit and run offences.
1. State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram, AIR 1966 SC 543
Facts: Driver caused death by rash driving and fled the scene.
Judgment: Supreme Court emphasized the duty of the driver to stop and render assistance. Failure to do so is an aggravating factor.
Significance: Laid down that leaving the accident spot worsens the offence and attracts stricter penalties.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 1980 SC 1360
Facts: Accused fled after causing death in an accident.
Judgment: Court held that hit and run reflects reckless disregard for human life and warrants stringent punishment.
Significance: Highlighted the importance of immediate assistance and reporting; non-compliance is criminal negligence.
3. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 495
Facts: In a hit and run case, the accused contended that he did not flee but was wrongly identified.
Judgment: Court observed that proof of fleeing is a key element and must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Significance: Reinforced the principle of presumption of innocence; prosecution must prove flight.
4. State of Kerala v. Raneesh, AIR 2014 SC 123
Facts: Driver involved in fatal accident failed to stop or inform police.
Judgment: Supreme Court ruled that Section 134 requires mandatory stopping and reporting, and failure constitutes an offence.
Significance: Emphasized statutory duty to assist accident victims, failure aggravates charges.
5. Ratanlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1983
Facts: Accused fled scene of accident after causing grievous injuries.
Judgment: Court held that fleeing from accident scene indicated guilty conscience and aggravated offence.
Significance: Flight used as circumstantial evidence of culpability.
6. Union of India v. V. Kishan Rao, AIR 1989 SC 1517
Facts: Involved prosecution of hit and run driver under Motor Vehicles Act.
Judgment: Supreme Court emphasized that compensation for victims should be prompt and the offender’s flight aggravates liability.
Significance: Balanced punishment with victim’s right to compensation.
7. Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 315
Facts: Accused hit pedestrian and fled.
Judgment: Court confirmed that fleeing shows culpable negligence, and driver must be penalized for hit and run.
Significance: Strengthened deterrence for leaving accident scene.
Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Facts | Judicial Principle |
|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram (1966) | Hit and run after fatal accident | Duty to stop and assist is mandatory |
| State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (1980) | Fled accident scene causing death | Flight aggravates offence; reckless disregard |
| Bhagwan Singh v. Haryana (2002) | Prosecution must prove fleeing beyond doubt | Presumption of innocence respected |
| Kerala v. Raneesh (2014) | Failure to stop/report fatal accident | Mandatory stopping/reporting under MVA is statutory duty |
| Ratanlal v. MP (1983) | Fleeing after causing injury | Flight evidences guilty conscience |
| Union of India v. Kishan Rao (1989) | Compensation and prosecution | Flight aggravates liability; victim compensation stressed |
| Harbhajan Singh v. Punjab (2003) | Hit pedestrian and fled | Flight shows culpable negligence; strict penalty |
RELATED Blog
comments