This article is written by Sai Shriya Potla, a student at the Pendekanti Law College, affiliated with Osmania University, Hyderabad. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the crime of hit-and-run in India. It further discusses the legal consequences of hit-and-run cases and the relief available to the victims.

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Introduction

Early in January 2023, a horrifying incident involving a woman being dragged to death in New Delhi stunned the whole nation. This incident increased attention towards hit-and-run cases. A hit-and-run case takes place when the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident flees the scene after causing the accident. Of all fatal accidents on national highways, hit-and-run incidents contributed up to 59 percent in 2021, an increase from 50 percent in  2020. According to the reports of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), over 47,530 people lost their lives in hit-and-run cases. With the increase in hit-and-run cases in India, the legislation brought significant changes through Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 with regard to compensation to the victims.

Download Now

The following article provides comprehensive information on hit-and-run cases in India, the punishment mentioned under Indian laws, and the relief a victim can claim.

Laws applicable in case of a hit-and-run in India

Under Indian law, hit-and-run cases are governed by the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. The Indian Penal Code provides punishment for hit-and-run cases. It contains references to provisions  for reckless and irresponsible driving that causes harm or hampers the safety of the public.

The Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019 governs all aspects of road transport vehicles. The act awards compensation to the victims of hit-and-run cases. The compensation is given to cover all medical expenses and other losses that occurred as a result of the accident.

Provisions under the Indian Penal Code, 1860

The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”)  makes reference to punishment for the negligent and reckless driving that hampers public safety. The majority of hit-and-run cases are caused by the negligent and irresponsible behaviour of drivers of motor vehicles. According to the reports, the main causes of these cases are claimed to be overspeeding and intoxication.

Section 279 IPC

Section 279 of the IPC addresses rash and negligent driving. Any person driving a vehicle in a public place in a rash and negligent way causing or likely to cause injury or endanger the life of any person will be liable under Section 279. To file a case under Section 279, the victim has to prove that he has suffered bodily injuries or created a life-threatening situation for the victim due to rash or negligent driving.

To constitute an offence under Section 279 of the IPC, the driving must be either rash or negligent. In the case of State of HP v. Manohar Singh (2011), the Supreme Court held that a single act cannot be both rash and negligent. It must be either one. 

The word “rash” is defined as taking a deliberate action despite knowing the consequences of the action’s aftermath. And the word “negligence” is known as the omission of something to do by which a reasonable and prudent man is guided. Negligence is also referred to as a breach of the duty imposed by law for the safety of others.

Punishment

To convict a person under Section 279, there is no need to sustain injuries, it’s enough to show rash or negligent driving occurred that is likely to cause injuries or endanger the safety of the public. For the commission of a crime under Section 279 of the IPC, the person will be liable for imprisonment for a term of one year or a fine which may extend up to 1000 rupees, or both. The punishment and fine may differ from case to case based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The offences under Section 279 are bailable, cognizable, and non-compoundable in nature.

Case laws of Section 279 IPC

  1. In the case of Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan (2012), the Supreme Court held that the rash or negligent driving of a vehicle must be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. The person who drives the vehicle will be held liable for the act as well as a result. The court further said that the speed of the vehicle is always not the factor to determine whether the person is driving it in a rash or negligent manner or not. The Supreme Court adopted the principle of reasonable care and res ipsa loquitur to determine the negligence of the accused. The doctrine of reasonable case is the standard of care the driver of a motor vehicle should exercise while driving. This principle differs in each case based on facts and circumstances. Res ipsa loquitur is a latin word that means the thing speaks for itself. This principle allows the court to infer the negligence of the driver by the way the accident is caused. The courts use parameters whenever there is no direct evidence found on record.
  2. In the case of Pawan Kumar Sharma v. State of UP (1995), Pawan Kumar alias Papoo was convicted under Sections 279, 304A, and 429 of IPC for driving rashly and hitting a bullock cart from behind killing the cartman and the buffalo. The  Allahabad High Court ruled that the person could not be convicted under Section 429 because there was no criminal intent or mens rea to cause harm or cause injury to the person in the bullock cart and the court upheld the conviction under Sections 279 and 304A as it fulfils the preliminary conditions of Section 279 and Section 304A.

Section 337 IPC

 Section 337 of the IPC deals with the hurt caused by a rash or negligent act that endangers the life or personal safety of people. Section 319 of the IPC defines “hurt” as bodily pain, disease, or any kind of infirmity. There are certain similarities between Section 279 and 337 of the IPC, the Delhi District Court resolved the ambiguity regarding these in the case of State v. Balkishan (2013). The Court held that under Section 279, rash or negligent driving is likely to cause injury, but Section 337 is invoked when the act already results in the injury of the victim.

Section 279 explicitly covers the rashness or negligence of driving. The offence under Section 279 can even be constituted if there is evidence of rash or negligent driving, while Section 337 of IPC applies to any rash or negligent act which jeopardises the safety of people.

Punishment

For the commission of an offence under Section 337 of IPC, the person is punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend up to six months or is liable with a fine of five hundred rupees or both. The offence punishable under Section 337 is bailable, cognizable, and compoundable in nature.

As the outcome of both the offences is the same under Section 279 and Section 337 of the IPC In case, if a person commits both crimes under both Section 279 and Section 337, the court will punish the offender under the section of higher magnitude. In Md Hiran Mia v. State of Tripura (2009), the Court said that the punishment under Section 279 is graver than the punishment under Section 337 of IPC and that Court declared that if a person commits both the offence under Section 279 and 337, the offender should be punished under Section 279 of IPC.

Case laws on Section 337 IPC

  1. In the case of State v. Gulam Meer (1955), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that to constitute an offence under Section 279 of IPC, there must be rash or negligent driving which is likely to cause injury or endanger the safety of the public. The driver will be liable under Section 279 for his way of driving even if there is no injury caused to the public. But under Section 337 and Section 338, rash or negligent driving should result in hurt or grievous hurt respectively.
  2. In the case of State v. Vijay Kumar (2012), the Delhi District Court said that to prove an offence under Section 337 of IPC, the injury must be by rash or negligent driving and the injuries must be simple in nature. The court also held that to impose criminal liability on the accused the injury must be the proximate or direct effect of the accident. It must be causa causans (immediate cause) and not causa sine qua non (necessary cause).

Section 338 IPC

Section 338 of the IPC talks about a rash or negligent act which causes grievous hurt or endangers the human life or personal safety of the public. Section 337 refers to hurt, whereas Section 338 of the IPC deals with grievous hurt caused by a rash or negligent act. Grievous hurt is referred to as a serious kind of hurt, where a person couldn’t perform his daily or ordinary tasks.

If a vehicle collides with a man while driving rashly or negligently resulting in a fracture, disfiguration of the face, or privation of joint, sight, or hearing power permanently, the driver will be punished under Section 338 of IPC.

Punishment

If a person is liable for an offence under Section 338 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to the victim, he will be punished with imprisonment for two years or a fine that may extend up to one thousand rupees or both. The offence under Section 338 is bailable, cognizable, and compoundable in nature.

Case laws on Section 338 IPC 

  1. In the case of Shiekh Munna v. State (2016), the accused who was driving in a rash manner hit the car to the scooter from the opposite side. The victim fell from the scooter and was grievously hurt. The victim suffered from the dislocation of the bone. The Delhi District Court held that the dislocation of bone falls within the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 and ruled that the accused is liable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
  2. In the case of Ajay Jain v. Common (2014), the victim’s family was going to Halena from Delhi in a car. A tractor fully loaded with bricks was in front of the victim’s car. The driver of the tractor without any indication negligently and recklessly stopped the car on the road leading to the collision of the victim’s car with the tractor. Petitioner and his wife suffered from grave injuries. The petitioner’s newborn baby died in the accident. The Delhi District Court found the driver guilty and punished him under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of IPC.

Section 304 IPC

Section 304 of the IPC talks about culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Any person who commits any act that results in the death of a person will be punishable under Section 304 Part II. The main ingredient of Section 304 Part II is that the person doing the act should have knowledge of the action but he should not have the intent to do so.

If a person drives the vehicle at a high speed knowing the consequences of it and ultimately hits a person and leading to his death will be liable under Section 304 Part II. In the above illustration, the offender has no intention to cause any harm to that person but has full knowledge of his act.

Punishment

If any person commits an offence under Section 304 Part II of IPC, he will be punished with imprisonment for a period of ten years or will be liable with a fine or both. The offence is punishable because it is non-bailable, cognizable, and non-compoundable in nature. But if a person drives in a manner with a real intention to cause the death of another person will be punished under Section 302 of the IPC with death or life imprisonment and will be liable with a fine.

Case laws of Section 304 Part II IPC

  1. In the case of Arnav Chowdary v. State of West Bengal  Anr. (2022) the accused was driving the vehicle at a very high speed leading to the death of one of the co-passenger. The Calcutta High Court held that the offence would fall under the provisions of Section 304 Part II, not under Section 304A. The Court further held that a prudent man would not drive a vehicle at a speed and dangerous speed which he cannot control and he would have full knowledge of the consequence of the act.
  2. In the case of Jasdeep Singh Kohli @ Louvi v.The State Of Nct Of Delhi (2016), the accused was on patrolling duty at night. The accused on his bike overtook a car ahead of them at a very high speed and hit the divider. The person sleeping on the divider was dead on spot. The people in the car behind the accused also suffered from grave injuries. The Trial Court ordered that the accused is guilty under Section 304 Part II. This decision of the Trial Court was challenged before the Delhi District Court. The Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and held that the person is liable under Section 304 Part II

Section 304A IPC

Any rash or negligent act of a person resulting in the death of another person will be punishable under Section 304A of IPC. The main element of Section 304A is that the person’s death should not be a culpable homicide. Culpable Homicide is an act of causing the death of a person with an intention to cause bodily injuries or death. But under Section 304A, there is no intention present to cause injury or death of the victim during the accident to be constituted as an offence under Section 304A. The death of the victim must be the direct and immediate effect of the accident.

It must be proved that there is a breach of duty by the victim to file a case under Section 304A of the IPC. However, if the accident is caused by the victim’s own negligence then this section will not be applicable. 

The court adopted the parameter of “reasonable care” to determine the negligence or rashness of the driver. The reasonable care will differ from case to case based on facts and circumstances. For example, the speed of the vehicle must be relatively less than that of highways.

Punishment

If the driver leads to the death of any person, the driver will be liable under Section 304A of IPC. The offender will be punished with imprisonment for a term of two years or with a fine or both. The offence punishable under Section 304A is bailable, cognizable, and non-compoundable in nature.

In the case of Charanjeet Singh Sachdev and Anr. v. The State and Anr. (2017), the Delhi High Court held that the offences under Section 279 and 304A of IPC can be compounded at the discretion of the Court by using its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Case laws of Section 304A IPC

  1. In the case of Thakur Singh v. State of Punjab (2000), a bus with 41 passengers fell into the canal while crossing the bridge due to the driver’s negligence leading to the death of all the passengers. The court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitor and held that the burden shifts to the person in control of the vehicle. Evidence has been found that the tree hit a tree before the occurrence of the accident. The Court determined that only a rash or negligent act of the driver could cause the accident as no mechanical defects in the automobile were found. The Court held that the driver is liable under Section 304A of IPC.
  2. In Prafulla Kumar Rout v. State of Orissa (1994), after the closure of the school, while the students were crossing the road, a bus at a high speed dashed over a minor girl named Bhanumati Pande and drove over her leading to her death. The Orissa High Court held the driver is liable under Section 304A of IPC. The Court further said that high speed is a relative term, it depends on nature, the situation of the road, and the concentration of pedestrians.

Section 308 IPC

Section 308 deals with the attempt to commit culpable homicide. Section 308 of IPC applies to two situations.

Whoever does any act in sudden provocation with intention or knowledge, and that act is likely to lead to the death of the other person, he would be punished under Section 308 of the IPC. 

If any person does an act in given circumstances with intention or knowledge that results in the actual injury of the victim, the offender will be liable under the attempt to commit culpable homicide of Section 308.

Punishment

Section 308 of the IPC deals with the attempt to commit culpable homicide. If a person attempts to kill another person under sudden provocation but the person inflicts no harm to the victim, he will be punished with imprisonment of three years, or a fine, or with both. But if the act results in harm to the victim the offender will be punished with imprisonment of seven years or a fine, or with both. The offence under Section 308 is non-bailable, cognizable, and non-compoundable.

Case laws of Section 308 IPC

  1. Allahabad High Court in the case of Vijay Mishra v. State of UP Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Anr (2022) held that even not causing any hurt can be constituted as an offence under Section 308 of the IPC, if a person attempts to commit culpable homicide in such circumstances with such intention or knowledge the given act would cause the death of another person. 
  2. In the case of Ramji Prasad v. State of UP and Another (2023), the Court observed that to constitute an offence under Section 308 the intention and knowledge are more material than the injuries caused.

Compensation for hit-and-run case victims

Every year, hit-and-run cases have resulted in the deaths and fatal injuries of numerous people, costing them their livelihoods. Many people don’t even have the financial means to afford medical treatment for injuries arising out of these accidents. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 has made provisions for compensation to victims of hit-and-run cases to make up for their losses.

The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 came into force on September 1, 2019, making significant changes to the  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The major objectives of the Act are to improve road safety and environmental health, increase the fitness of vehicles, maintenance of roads, and increase compensation for hit-and-run case victims.

Section 161 of Motor Vehicles Act

Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act was amended in 2019. Section 161 of the act covers the compensation to be given in the hit and run cases. Section 161(2) provides compensation for grievous hurt and death caused by hit-and-run cases. 

The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 provides an amount of up to Rs. two lakhs in case of death arising out of these accidents. The compensation amount was increased from Rs. twenty-five thousand after the 2019 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act. And in the case of grievous hurt, the Act awards compensation of Rs. fifty thousand rupees, which was increased from Rs. twelve thousand five hundred rupees after the amendment.

Section 161(4) of the Act mentions that the central government will provide a scheme that will be administered by the General Insurance Council mentioning the form and manner of the applications to be made for compensations and all matters related to payment of compensation.

Section 161(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act mentions that contravention of any provision under Section 161 will lead to imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of not less than twenty-five thousand rupees and may exceed five lakh rupees. The provision also mentions the amount provided by the central government for interim relief. Interim relief is the sum paid to the victim before the settlement of the total compensation. Interim relief is granted to cover personal or medical expenses that need immediate effect.

The Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022

The central government in accordance with the provisions of Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 notified the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 on February 25, 2022, and the scheme came into force on April 01, 2022.

Constitution of Standing Committee

The Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Accidents Scheme, 2022 specifies that a Standing Committee will be constituted to review the functioning of the scheme. The scheme mentions that an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be the chairman of the committee and the other members of the scheme will be officers from other ministries of the central government. And one member will be nominated by the General Insurance Company as the Member – Secretary. 

The Standing Committee monitors the operation of the process of providing compensation to the victims under the scheme. The committee supervises the consideration of the General Insurance Council Report. The Standing Committee guides the Insurance Council on the implementation of the scheme and provides specific directive steps whenever necessary.

The Committee overviews the functioning of the District Level Committee and also considers the quarter reports and provides directions or guidance. The Standing Committee has the power to suggest to the Central Government to make recommendations for the effective working of the Scheme and to prevent fraud.

The General Insurance Company will prepare an Annual Report on the implementation of the Scheme for the Standing Committee and a copy to the Central Government.  

District Level Committee

The Scheme mentions that there will be a District Level Committee created in every district to implement the provisions of the Scheme. The Claims Settlement Commissioner will be the Chairman of the District-Level Committee. A member will be nominated by the General Insurance Council as Member – Secretary. Senior officers from different departments of the State Government will be joined as members of the District Level Committee. A few members of the Committee will be nominated by the State Government. 

The main function of the District Level Committee is the implementation of the scheme in the concerned district. The Committee has full authority to take necessary actions to ensure the effective and competent implementation of the Scheme.

The District Level Committee has to submit a report to the Standing Committee including the statistics of compensation claims received, the claims awarded, and the pendency of the claims, and reasons for such pendency.

The Scheme provides that the Committee shall maintain proximate relations with the other authorities in the district to make publicity about the scheme. It is the responsibility of the Committee to spread awareness among the people about the contents of the Scheme and educate them about their rights. The Committee upon asked will provide guidelines or clarifications to the concerned authorities or claimants.

The Procedure for the payment of compensation

The scheme provides the procedure for receiving the claims for compensation. The applicant has to file an application along with a copy of the claim raised by the hospital to the Claims Enquiry Officer of the Sub-Division or Taluka where the accident took place. On receiving the application, the Claims Enquiry Officer will hold an inquiry of the claim with the First Accident Report (FAR) and the postmortem report. 

The scheme specifically mentions that the Claims Enquiry Officer has to find out the rightful claimant. The Claims Enquiry Officer will send the application along with the recommendations and all necessary documents to the Claims Enquiry Commissioner within a month of filing the application. The Clams Enquiry Officer has the right to reject any application but he shall also mention the reasons for not accepting the application to the applicant. 

The payment will be made by the Claims Enquiry Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the Sanction Order. If the payment of the compensation exceeds thirty days, the reasons for such delay must be mentioned to the Claims Enquiry Officer.

In the case of the death of the victim under the hit-and-run case, compensation will be awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased. And if a victim sustains grievous injury in the accident, the person injured will receive compensation. After the disbursement of the compensation, the Claims Enquiry Officer will maintain the record with the date of payment and the claim awarded.

Section 162 of Motor Vehicles Act

Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 mentions the “Scheme for the Golden Hour”. The section makes provisions for the cashless treatment of the victims during the golden hour. The “Golden Hour” is the first hour after the accident. If the victim receives proper medical care or definitive treatment within the period, the chances for survival of the person increases greatly.

The Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 mentions the provisions in relation to Section 162 of the Act. The amount will be transferred from the Hit and Run Compensation Account to the Account for Uninsured Vehicles, which is a part of the fund used for the cashless treatment under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But if the claim raised by the hospital is more than the fixed compensation mentioned under Section 162 of the Act, no compensation will be provided to the victim. 

Section 163 of Motor Vehicles Act

Section 163 discusses the refund of certain cases of compensation paid under Section 161. Section 163(1) mentions if a person is awarded with the compensation equivalent to Section 161 of the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019 for grievous hurt or death arising out of a hit-and-run case by any other law, the person will be liable to refund the amount received under Section 161 to the insurer.

Section 163(2) states that the claims tribunal, court, or any authority awarding the compensation will inquire and verify whether or not the compensation for death or grievous hurt under Section 161 has been awarded. 

Section 164 of Motor Vehicles Act

Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act authorises that the death and grievous hurt arising out of the motor vehicle accident, in case of no-fault liability the compensation of Rs. five lakhs and Rs. two and half lakhs, respectively.

After the amendment, to claim compensation under Section 164 of the Act there shall be no necessity for the victim to establish or prove before the court, the death or grievous hurt is caused due to the negligence of the owner or driver of the motor vehicle. If the compensation for the death or grievous hurt arising out of an accident is paid under any other law, the compensation under this section will exclude the initial sum paid under other law.

Section 164B of Motor Vehicles Act

Section 164B makes provision for establishing a Motor Vehicle Accident Fund. The fund is used to make payment of compensation to legal representatives of dead or grievously hurt persons as mentioned in Section 161 of the Act. It is also used in making cashless payments to victims under Section 162.

A trust will be formed in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund of Section 164B. An officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be appointed as the Chairman of the trust and the Director of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be the member-coordinator. And officers from other ministries of the central government and the General Insurance Council will act as members of the trust. 

The trust is formed for the effective management of the fund. The trust timely supervises the annual report of the contributions of the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund. The trust also has the power to recommend to the central government on implementation of the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022.

Components of income for the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund

There are three accounts within the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund

  1. Account for Insured Vehicles
  2. Account for Uninsured Vehicles
  3. Hit-and-Run Compensation Account

1. Account for Insured Vehicles: Account for Insured Vehicles is used for cashless treatment of victims caused by insured vehicles. This account is administered by General Insurance Council under the Trust. Some amount from the insurance companies running their business in India will be contributed to this account.

2. Account for Uninsured Vehicles: This account is utilised for cashless treatment of victims caused by uninsured vehicles. The tax collected by the Central Government on the National Highways, budgetary grants by the Consolidated Fund of India, and fines collected through Section 198A of the Motor Vehicles Act are the sources of this account. This account is controlled by the General Insurance Council under the Trust.

3. Hit and Run Compensation Account: Hit and Run Compensation Account will be utilised for the victims of Hit and Run cases. This account is also used for reimbursement of money to the Account for Uninsured Vehicles for cashless treatment under Section 162. This account is administered by the General Insurance Council under the Trust. The balance under the Solatium Scheme will be transferred to this account.

Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal 

Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal is an adjudicating body established for the settlement of compensation claims with respect to accidents resulting in death, bodily injuries, or damage to third-party property caused by a motor vehicle. Section 165 authorises the state government to constitute one or more claims tribunals in an area. The state government with general or specific order regulate the distribution of business among them.

The claims tribunal will consist of the number of members as decided by the state government. If the members of the claims tribunal are two or more than two, one of them will be appointed as the chairman. Section 165(3) specifies that the members of the claims tribunal should be a District Judge or High Court Judge or a person qualified to be appointed as a High Court Judge.

Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 grants the state government the authority to constitute the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal for adjudication of cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents involving death, grave injuries, and damage to property. Section 166 mentions that the application before the Claims Tribunal must be before six months of the occurrence of the accident. 

Role of insurance companies in hit-and-run cases

The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 mandates third-party insurance of motor vehicles.  There are three parties in this insurance policy – the insured, insurance company, and the third party. If the insured caused any injury to the third party with a motor vehicle, the insurance company will compensate the third party, but the insurance scheme will not provide any benefit to the insured for the loss that occurred in the course of the collision. 

The insurance company can provide compensation for only those damages that are covered in the insurance policy. For instance, if the driver does not have a valid driving licence or if the driver is found under the influence of alcohol the insurance company will not provide any compensation.

Famous hit-and-run cases in India

Sanjeev Nanda v. State (2009)

The case is famously known as the 1999 BMW Delhi hit-and-run case and is one of the most known hit-and-run cases in India. Sanjeev Nanda is the grandson of the Indian Navy Chief and son of Indian arms dealer Suresh Nanda.

Facts of the Case

In the early morning of January 10, 1999, Sanjeev Nanda drove a black BMW car on seven people on Lodhi Road, New Delhi killing 6 persons and injuring one person. 

The charges were arrested against Sanjeev Nanda and his Co-accused Manik Kapur and Siddharth Gupta, later Siddharth Gupta was discharged by the Bombay High Court. Rajiv Gupta, Bhola Nath, and Shyam Singh Rana were arrested for the destruction of evidence under Section 201 Part III. Sanjeev Nanda was found under the influence of alcohol during the course of the accident. The Bombay High Court found Sanjeev Nanda guilty under Section 304 Part II of IPC for Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. 

Sanjeev Nanda filed an appeal in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the Bombay High Court for conviction under Section 304 Part II and the right to a speedy trial.

Observation

The Supreme Court opined that the appellant was in a drunken state, and he drove the motor vehicle knowing the consequences of the act but with the hope that he would not get caught. All these components are part of the provision of Section 304A of IPC. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the facts of the case would attract the provisions of Section 304A of IPC. 

Judgement

The Supreme Court overruled the judgement of the Bombay High Court by altering Sanjeev Nanda’s conviction from Section 304 Part II to Section 304A of IPC. The Supreme Court ordered Sanjeev Nanda to be sentenced to two years of imprisonment.

In 2012, the Delhi Police filed an appeal before the Supreme Court to increase the sentence of Sanjeev Nanda. The Delhi Police further appealed to change the conviction from Section 304A to Section 304 Part II stating that he was driving the vehicle without a licence and was under influence of alcohol and these facts are enough to constitute knowledge under Section 304 Part II. But the Supreme Court quashed the appeal.

Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)

Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) is one of the landmark cases in hit-and-run accidents. The Supreme Court in this case held that Section 304 Part II and Section 337 can legally co-exist. 

Facts of the Case

On the early morning of November 12, 2006, Alister Anthony, a 21-year-old drove over the labourers sleeping outside their huts killing seven people and injuring eight of them at Bandra, Mumbai. On investigation by the police, alcohol traces were found in his body. The Bombay High Court found Alister Anthony guilty under Sections 304 Part II, 337, and 338 of IPC for death and causing injuries to the labourers. Alister Anthony preferred to appeal against the decision of the High Court in the Supreme Court.

Observation

The Supreme Court agreed with the contentions of the Bombay High Court that the accused drove the car at a high speed and under the influence of alcohol despite he being a member of the same locality and knowing labourers sleep out every night. It was argued on behalf of the accused that he had already spent two months in jail and the accused paid compensation of rupees 8,50,000 and is ready to pay more. It was further argued to reduce the sentence given to the accused. The Supreme Court refused to accept the contentions of the accused and said that there can be no modifications in the punishment for causing such an aggravated offence of killing seven precious lives.

Judgement

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and held that there shall be no reduction of sentence for good conduct. The Supreme Court ordered Alister Anthony to undergo the sentence given by the Bombay High Court.

Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020)

Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi (2020). also known as the 2016 Mercedes hit-and-run case is an infamously famous case for a juvenile causing the death of a 32-year-old man in an accident.

Facts of the Case

A minor who was 4 days short of 18 years old committed an offence under Section 304 by hitting down Siddharth Sharma, a 32-year-old business consultant, with his father’s Mercedes in North Delhi’s Civil Lines. 

The Juvenile Justice Board ordered that the minor should be tried as an adult, keeping in mind that he had committed a heinous crime. The Delhi Sessions Court agreed with the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board, while the Delhi High Court overruled the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board in 2019. The sister of the deceased victim appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi High Court.

Observation

The Supreme Court also agreed with the opinion of the Delhi High Court. Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 provides that offences for which minimum punishment is more than seven years are considered as serious and heinous offences and juveniles can be tried as an adult under this section. Section 304 of the IPC mentions maximum imprisonment of ten years and there is no reference to the minimum imprisonment in the Section. The Supreme Court observed that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 does not have provision for the 4th category of offences viz., offences for which the maximum imprisonment is more than seven Years. 

Judgement

The Supreme Court held that the minor would be tried as a juvenile, not as an adult, and instructed the Parliament to make provisions for the 4th category of offences in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Conclusion

Stringent provisions of punishment and compensation for hit-and-run cases are adopted in the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Motor Vehicles Act, 2019, respectively, to ensure the prevention of similar accidents. Punishment under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has provisions that cover all aspects of accidents, making it impossible for the offender to evade the punishment. The changes in the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019 like compulsory third-party insurance for motor vehicles, cashless treatment in the golden hour, and the increase in compensation for victims of hit-and-run cases are extremely beneficial in terms of better medical care and other losses. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS)

What is the punishment for death in hit-and-run cases in India?

The person will be convicted under Section 304 Part II or Section 304A of the IPC based on his or her knowledge and intention. The maximum punishment under Section 304 Part II is imprisonment of 10 years or a fine or both. Under Section 304A of the IPC, the person will be punishable with a maximum punishment of two years or a fine, or both. But if the person has real intention and knowledge to cause the accident, he will be punished under Section 302 of the IPC with death or life imprisonment and a fine.

What is the compensation for hit-and-run cases in India?

Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, provides the victims of Hit and Run accidents with compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for death and Rs. 50,000 for grievous hurt.

Where can victims claim compensation for hit-and-run accidents?

The victim or the legal representatives of the victim should submit an application along with the claim raised by the hospital to the Claims Enquiry Hospital of Sub-Division or Taluka where the accident took place.

What should a person do as a victim of a hit-and-run accident?

The victim should check for injuries, gather information about the perpetrator and inform the nearest police station, file a First Information Report (FIR) and provide accident details in order for the police to start the investigation. 

If the victim is seriously injured in the accident, any person present at the accident scene must bring the victim to the hospital and provide him with the necessary medical attention and inform the police station about the accident. The person who assisted the victim and provided the information to the police about the accident will be known as “Good Samaritan” under Section 134A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The police can examine the good samaritan if he agrees to be a witness to the accident.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here