Law on Hit and Run cases in India with landmark hit and run judgments

❖    Introduction

❖    An Overview – Ahmedabad’s Rising Cases

❖    Infamous Cases from 2024 Across India

❖    Understanding Negligence in Torts

• What is Negligence?
• Legal Tests for Negligence

❖    Negligence in Hit-and-Run Cases

❖    Recent Hit-and-Run Incidents

❖    Landmark Case Laws

• Sanjeev Nanda v. State
• Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi
• Janhavi Gadkar v. State of Maharashtra
• Moulasab v. State of Karnataka

❖    Challenges in Enforcement

• Low Conviction Rates
• Fear of Mob Violence
• Lack of Forensic Evidence

❖    Recommendations for Improvement

• Strengthening Law Enforcement
• Public Awareness and Education
• Advanced Forensic Investigation
• Increased Accountability

❖    Legal Provisions Governing Hit-and-Run Cases

❖    Opposition to the New Hit-and-Run Law

❖    Conclusion: Striking a Balance Between Accountability and Fairness

Introduction

Hit-and-run cases significantly contribute to road accidents in India. Often, drivers flee the scene of the accident due to fear of police inquiry, punishment, or even the risk of further violence. As a result, many victims of such accidents do not receive timely medical assistance, especially in areas where hospitals are far away and resources are limited. This delay in medical care can lead to severe, irreversible injuries or even death.

Before the introduction of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, most hit-and-run and road rage cases were governed under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988; however, the provisions under this act were not stringent enough to deter offenders. The relatively low fines and lenient jail terms meant that many individuals did not fear the consequences, leading to a continuous rise in road accident cases.

An overlook - Ahmedabad's Rising Cases

In Ahmedabad, hit-and-run incidents have surged dramatically in 2025. Within the first 45 days of the year, 61 cases were reported, resulting in 21 fatalities. Notably, two accidents in the area of Navrangpura and Chandkheda involved drunk drivers who fled the scene. Despite efforts, only 20 suspects were apprehended while 41 remain at large. This highlights systemic issues such as inadequate police staffing and a lack of deterrence mechanisms.

Over the past two years (2023 and 2024), the city of Ahmedabad has reported a total of 344 hit-and-run cases, including 117 fatalities. However, there were more accidents and fatalities in Ahmedabad rural: 395 accidents with 228 fatalities, accounting for 57% of fatalities during this period. 

In Ahmedabad city, in 2024, there were 161 hit-and-run cases, 12% less than in 2023, which had 183 hit-and-run accidents. Accident fatalities were similarly down to 50 in 2024 from 67 in 2023, representing a drop of 25.4%. In Ahmedabad Rural, while the number of hit-and-run cases decreased in 2024 relative to 2023, the number of fatalities remained relatively equal, with 114 each year for both 2023 and 2024. In total, in the cases which have been registered in Ahmedabad city 256 individuals are absconding, and in rural Ahmedabad, 152 individuals are absconding.

This rise and fall in the hit and run cases still denotes that India needs more stringent laws and more critical rules for the application of these laws so that citizens become more aware and take care while driving their vehicles in public on the road.

Infamous Cases from 2024 around the country
Several high-profile hit-and-run incidents occurred across India in 2024:

• Navi Mumbai: A man learning to drive accidentally accelerated instead of braking, killing an auto driver.
• Bangalore: Two separate incidents on November 2 involved drunk drivers causing fatalities. In one case, the accused was caught by bystanders.
• Delhi: A police constable investigating a robbery died after being hit by a speeding car that dragged him for several meters.
• Indore: Two women were killed when a BMW driver, rushing to deliver a cake, drove in the wrong direction and fled the scene.

What is Negligence in Torts

Torts are legal wrongs that one party suffers at the hands of another. Negligence is a form of tort that evolved because some types of loss or damage occur between parties that have no contract between them, and therefore, there is nothing for one party to sue the other over.

The term ‘negligence’ is used for the purpose of putting the liability on the defendant under the Civil Law and, at times, under the Criminal Law. Generally speaking, negligence is the amount of damages incurred which is determinative of the extent of liability in tort; but in criminal law it is not the amount of damages but the amount and degree of the negligence that is determinative of liability.

The test requires that:

1. Harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct
That is, the dependent should have already in his mind known that his actions would lead to a certain consequence.

2. A relationship of proximity must exist
That is the defendant's actions, and the consequences should be closely related; it cannot be far-fetched because it would be difficult to put the liability on him in that case.

3. It must be fair, just, and reasonable to impose liability
That is, whatever liability is being imposed should be fair. It cannot exceed what action the defendant has conducted. For example, in a hit and run case, a fine and jail time are enough; we do not need to punish the defendant by hanging him - in case the damage done to the petitioner is not that much, and this can be resolved by the courts of reasonable jurisdiction.

Negligence in Hit-and-Run Cases

Negligence is a key legal concept in hit-and-run cases. It refers to the failure to act with reasonable care, resulting in harm to others. Under Indian law:

• Negligence can be categorized as either rash (deliberate disregard for consequences) or negligent (failure to act prudently).
• In State of HP v. Manohar Singh (2011), the Supreme Court clarified that an act cannot be both rash and negligent simultaneously—it must be one or the other.

Recent Happenings:

Four individuals were killed and two others sustained injuries after a Mercedes crashed into them and drove away in Dehradun, Uttarakhand, on Wednesday. The suspect, identified as Vansh Katyal, 22, was apprehended after a 24-hour search. The incident took place at a location close to the Sai Temple on Rajpur Road, when the driver lost control of the vehicle and ran over people who were walking near the road and a few two-wheelers. CCTV footage shows a speeding silver Mercedes on Sahastradhara Road just after the incident.

Landmark Case Laws

1. Sanjeev Nanda v. State
In this infamous case from 1999, Sanjeev Nanda ran over six people with his car. Initially acquitted, he was later found guilty in 2008 and sentenced to two years imprisonment along with community service. The case highlighted judicial challenges in holding powerful individuals accountable.

2. Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi
This case involved a teenager driving a Mercedes who killed a pedestrian in Delhi. 
The Supreme Court justices, Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose ruled that the absence of a minimum term creates a legal gap in the way such acts are defined. The Juvenile Justice Act deals with serious and heinous acts, but the court implied the act fails to capture circumstances without minimums while potentially having a maximum greater than seven years. 

The ruling said the dangerousness of these should be rated as serious until Parliament fixes this legislative gap. The decision highlighted it should be the exception of treating minors as adults, not the rule, and failing to consider minimums when classifying any offenses with significant potential jail, even without a minimum, as heinous is unsupported in the statutory framework as it exists now.

The juvenile was released on bail despite public outrage over lenient treatment for underage offenders in serious crimes.

3. Janhavi Gadkar v. State of Maharashtra
On June 10, 2015,a corporate lawyer Janhavi Gadkar, rammed her Audi Q3 into a taxi killing two people, Mohammed Abdul Sayyad (55) and Mohammed Salim Sabuwala (50). Following the accident, a case was filed against her under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code by the Mumbai Police.
Her case underscored concerns about reckless behavior among educated professionals and the need for stringent enforcement of traffic laws.

4. Moulasab v. State of Karnataka, 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 640
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, passed an order that says over-speeding is not a necessary condition for rash driving. In this case, the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner that endangered human life or would be likely to cause hurt or injury to someone else, and as a result, hit a cyclist who died from injuries sustained in the accident. 

The accused appealed, among other things, because the courts below did not take into consideration the fact that there were speed breakers and traffic signals some distance from the site of the alleged accident, and therefore, it was not possible for the alleged offending vehicle to be going at a high speed. 

The court said that with the words rash driving it is not meant to be assumed that the vehicle said to be rash in driving must also be assumed to be going at a high speed. The principle of res ipsa loquitur (the facts speak for themselves) was applied to determine liability.

Challenges in Enforcement

Despite stringent laws like BNS and IPC provisions:

1. Low Conviction Rates: Many perpetrators remain at large due to inadequate investigation resources.
2. Mob Fury: Drivers often face mob violence at accident scenes, discouraging them from assisting victims or reporting incidents.
3. Forensic Evidence: Lack of forensic investigation leads to insufficient proof against offenders.
   Recommendations for Improvement

To curb hit-and-run cases:

1. Enhanced Policing: Increased police presence on roads can deter reckless driving.
2. Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating citizens about legal obligations under traffic laws.
3. Improved Forensic Techniques: Using advanced methods to gather evidence at crash sites.
4. Accountability Mechanisms: Holding senior officers responsible for lapses in enforcement could improve compliance among junior staff.

Legal Provisions Governing Hit-and-Run Cases

Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Earlier, the IPC addressed  reckless and negligent driving under Section 279:

• Section 279 IPC: Punishes rash or negligent driving that endangers life or causes injury. Conviction requires proof of bodily harm or life-threatening situations caused by the driver's actions.
• Punishment: Up to one year imprisonment or a fine of ₹1,000, or both. The offense is bailable and cognizable.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates that drivers involved in accidents assist victims and report the incident to authorities. Failure to do so constitutes a violation.

Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Section 106 in the BNS replaces the IPC's Section 304A, which covered acts of causing death by rash or negligent conduct not amounting to culpable homicide, with a two-year prison term. In contrast, Section 106 has three parts: first, it describes a term of imprisonment of up to five years, along with a fine, for causing death by rash or negligent act; second, it reduces the criminal liability of registered medical doctors to a prison sentence of two years if the death caused occurred in the course of the medical procedure; and lastly, the third aspect of the section pertains to road traffic incidents, in which, if the individual involved in rash or negligent driving “escapes without reporting to a police officer or a Magistrate immediately after the incident”, he or she may also be imprisoned for up to 10 years and fined. 

Section 106 (2) of BNS is also applied when the driver has fled the scene after causing the death of a person.

The BNS introduces stricter penalties for hit-and-run cases:

1. Section 106(1): Drivers who report accidents face up to five years imprisonment and fines.
2. Section 106(2): Drivers fleeing the scene without reporting face up to ten years imprisonment and fines.

These provisions aim to deter reckless behavior and enforce moral responsibility toward accident victims.

Opposing contents from the Public

1. Unfair sanction: The protestors contend that the more severe penalty of 10-year imprisonment is unreasonable and inequitable. 
2. Unjust attribution: Commercial heavy vehicle drivers assert that, regardless of what really happened on road, they are all blamed for the accident. This implication is likely to be intensified by the provisions of the new law.
3. Opposed to Article 20(3) (Part III - Fundamental Rights): The new hit and run law is opposed to the fundamental right of prohibition against self-incrimination, which is enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. According to provisions of Article 20(3), no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
4. Potential for abuse: There are concerns that the new law may be abused by the legal enforcement and the injured persons to gain compensation. 
5. Potential for mob violence: In general, the drivers flee from the accident scene, because of mob violence. The new law provides stricter punishments to the drivers who has fled but the law does not have any provisions to ensure safety from mob violence.
6. Discrepancy with current law: There is a discrepancy between the new law and Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 that states that the compensation to victims in the case of hit and run is Rs 2 lakhs in case of death of the victims, and Rs 15,000 in the case of grievous hurt.
7. Challenging work conditions: The protestors also highlight that the new law ignores the challenging work environments of drivers and transporters, which include long hours of driving and difficult road infrastructure. 
8. Transporters also argue that road traffic accidents also entails other aspects which the driver cannot control such as visibility due to fog. 
9. Violation of equality principle: Section 106(2) of the BNS, 2023 allows a doctor to be neglected due to rash or negligent driving. In other words, if a doctor was driving negligently, the maximum punishment would be 2 years, along with a fine. This is a violation of the principle of equality.

Conclusion

Hit-and-run cases are not merely traffic violations but grave offenses that endanger lives and erode public trust in law enforcement systems. Recent legislative changes like the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita reflect India's commitment to addressing this menace through stricter penalties and moral accountability frameworks. However, effective implementation remains crucial for achieving tangible results in reducing road fatalities and ensuring justice for victims.

The new hit and run legislation could successfully hold drivers more accountable for hit and runs and has the potential to save many lives by enforcing harsher penalties on drivers who leave the scene of an accident. However, that new law has also created many challenges and concerns for drivers which led to a protest against the law and demanded the withdrawal or amendment of Section 106(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.