Name – Aayushi Pandey

Enrollment No. – 00917703818

Semester and section – 4-A

A research paper on

Hit and run cases - Menace

Subject: Law Of Crimes – II

Subject Teacher – Ms. Sakshi Gupta

1
 DECLARATION

I solemnly declare that the project report is based on my own work carried out during the
course of our study under the supervision of Ms. Sakshi Gupta.

I assert the statements made and conclusions drawn are an outcome of my research work. I
further certify that:

I. The work contained in the report is original and has been done by me under the
general supervision of my supervisor.

II. The work has not been submitted to any other Institution for any other
degree/diploma/certificate in this university or any other University of India or
abroad.

III. We have followed the guidelines provided by the university in writing the report.

IV. Whenever we have used materials (data, theoretical analysis, and text) from other
sources, we have given due credit to them in the text of the report and giving their
details in the references.

Aayushi pandey
(Roll no. 00917703818)

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Ms. Sakshi Gupta as well

as our Dean Prof. Dr. Rashmi Salpekar who gave me the golden opportunity to do this

wondrous project on ‘Hit and run cases – menace’ which also helped me in doing a lot of

research and I came to know about so many new things, I am really thankful to them.

Aayushi Pandey

(00917703818)

3
 INDEX

S No. Title Page no.

1. Introduction – Objective, Methodology, Review of 5
literature

2. The Problem of Hit and Run 8

3. Why hit and run drivers flee the scene 9

4. Hit and run cases in India – Motor vehicles Act, 1988 10

5. The two landmark hit and run case laws in India 13

6. Conclusion and suggestions 15

7. Bibliography 16

4
Hit and Run cases – Menace

Abstract

Hit-and-run crashes are accidents where drivers of striking vehicles fail to stop after crashes.
Without helping victims or reporting accidents to associated authorities could increase the
likelihood of serious injuries and even fatalities. In the current study, hit-and-run crashes
were thoroughly investigated and analysed as it is a threat or menace to our society. In order
to reduce hit-and-run crashes, it is important to understand factors contributing to decisions of
fleeing crash scenes. The results of the current study could offer important insights for
reducing hit-and-run crashes in both planning and operational levels.

INTRODUCTION

Injuries and fatalities caused by traffic accidents has been acknowledged as a serious threat to
human lives around the world. According to World Health Organization 1, almost 1.24 million
people lose their lives as a result of traffic accidents each year. In addition, 20 to 50 million
people are subject to non-fatal injuries. Although traffic accidents have diverse categories,
hit-and-run crashes are among the most dangerous ones. Hit-and-run crashes refer to
accidents where drivers of striking vehicles directly leave the scenes without helping victims
or reporting accidents to relevant authorities. Hit-and-run behaviours could significantly
increase the probability of severe injuries and even fatalities due to delays in emergency
medical services.

Although hit-and-run is considered as a severe crime by most law enforcements and drivers
have to face major crime charges if they were caught fleeing the scenes, hit-and-run crashes
rate remains increases in many major cities.

According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2, fatalities caused by hit-and-

run crashes experienced a 13.7% increase, from 1,274 in 2009 to 1,449 in 2011. It should be
noted that overall deaths in traffic decreased by 4.5% during the same time period.

1
World Health Organization (2013). Global Status Report on Road Safety 2013.
2
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2013). 2011 Traffic Safety Facts FARS/GES Annual Report

5
OBJECTIVE

The current study is aimed at contributing to existing literature by exploring how much of
threat the hit and run crashes to India and to the world. Previous studies related to this topic
were firstly reviewed and then finally conclusions and suggestions were presented for future
study.

METHODOLOGY

This research paper is an outcome of analytical analysis of secondary data. The primary
source of the information is the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. Apart from that, several reports as
well as case laws were also referred to find out the present position of law.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The scientific literature on hit-and-run crashes is sparse, with only a few major works written
over the last 30 years.

Pedestrians account for the majority of people killed in hit-and-run crashes; as a result, they
are the focus of the majority of available research studies. Studies of U.S. road fatalities over
the past 30 years have shown that approximately 1 in 5 pedestrian deaths involve a hit-and
run crash.3 This trend continues in the current data with 19.5 percent of pedestrian fatalities
involving hit-and run crashes for the period of 2006 to 2016. To put this in perspective, only
1 percent of vehicle driver deaths involved hit-and-run crashes in the same time period.

An early study by Solnick and Hemenway (1995) analysed FARS data on pedestrian hit-and-
run victims in the continental U.S. between 1989 and 1991. They found that victim age was a
factor in whether or not the driver flees the scene. Fatally injured pedestrians under the age of
6 or over age 80 were half as likely to be victims of hit and run collisions as fatally injured
pedestrians in other age groups. There are also gender disparities among hit and run victims.
MacLeod et al. (2012) found that males make up around 70 percent of hit-and-run victims in
single car/ single pedestrian crashes. Victim characteristics also are associated with the
likelihood that a driver who flees the scene after a crash will later be identified. For example,
MacLeod et al. (2012) found that the age of the victim in single-vehicle fatal pedestrian hit-
and-runs was predictive of the likelihood of the driver being identified. In crashes involving
children ages 6 to 15, the driver is identified more than 60 percent of the time versus a 39
3
MacLeod, Griswold, Arnold, & Ragland, 2012; National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2017; Solnick &
Hemenway, 1995

6
percent driver identification rate for victims between 31 and 55 years old. There is an
increase in driver identification rates for crashes with older victims–49 percent when victims
are between 76 and 80 years old. Again, time of day of the crash may be a factor, along with
the possibility that police and the local community put more resources into finding the
perpetrator. MacLeod et al. (2012) also noted that drivers were 6.6 percent more likely to be
identified in cases where the victim was female compared with cases with a male victim.

It is interesting to note the similarities between the profile of all pedestrian fatalities and those
involving hit-and-run crashes. In both groups, males make up approximately 70 percent of
the victims and there are lower numbers of victims at the ends of the age spectrum.4

MacLeod et al. (2012), in their examination of single vehicle/single pedestrian fatal crashes,
found fleeing to be nearly 4.4 times more likely between midnight and 4 a.m. compared with
those between 8 a.m. and 11:59 a.m. Similarly, pedestrian-involved fatal hit-and-run crashes
are less than half as likely to occur in daylight.5

When looking at all hit-and-run crash types (i.e., involving fatalities and injuries, as well as
property damage only), the time of crash varies. In Hawaii, for example, the most common
time for hit-and-run crashes was between 3 and 4 p.m.6 Another study looking at all hit-and-
run crash types in Calgary, Canada, found that approximately 85 percent of hit-and-run
crashes occurred during the day.7 For crashes involving property damage only, it is possible
that drivers may not know it is their responsibility to stop and report the crash.8

Interestingly, weather conditions have not been shown to be a statistically significant

predictor of hit-and-run crashes.9 While poor weather conditions may decrease visibility, they
also reduce the exposure of people most vulnerable to hit and run crashes, mainly pedestrians.
Jiang, Lu, Chen, and Lu (2016) suggest that in situations where the driver is not in control,
such as when the weather is bad, they may not feel as responsible for the collision. Feeling
less at fault for the crash may encourage drivers to stay at the scene.

THE PROBLEM OF HIT AND RUN

4
National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2017
5
Solnick & Hemenway, 1995
6
Kim, Pant, & Yamashita, 2008
7
Tay, Kattan, & Sun, 2010
8
Hopkins, Chivers, & Stevenson-Freer, 2017
9
Kim et al., 2008; Tay, Barua, & Kattan, 2009

7
A Hit and run case is the crime of a driver of a vehicle who is involved in a collision with
another vehicle, property or human being, who knowingly fails to stop to give his/her name,
license number and other information as required by statute to the injured party, a witness or
law enforcement officers. If there is only property damage and no other person is present,
leaving the information attached to the damaged property may be sufficient, provided the
person causing the accident makes a report to the police.10

Hit and run statutes vary from state to state. It is not a violation of the constitutional
protection against self-incrimination to be required to stop and give this information since it
is a report and not an admission of guilt. Some hit and run cases are difficult to determine,
such as the driver leaves the accident scene to go a block to his/her house or the
neighbourhood repair garage, and then walks back to the scene.

The problem of hit-and-run accidents has been an ongoing source of concern in policy
circles, for both those with a responsibility for roads policing and for road safety
campaigners. Nationally, Department for Transport (DfT) data highlights that in 2015, of the
140,056 road traffic accidents where an injury was sustained, in just over 12% (n=17,122) a
hit and run driver was involved. Of all hit-and-run incidents, in 90% there was slight injury,
in 9% serious injury and a fatality in less than 1%.11

Although the level of seriousness of accidents in relation to fail to stop/report offences can
vary significantly, there are several potentially negative consequences. While the most severe
incidents might lead to death or serious physical injury, there can also be potentially long-
term and emotional impacts on both victims and their families, as well as financial
implications. While the total costs of hit and run incidents are unknown, in 2014 the cost of
an accident with a fatality was estimated to be in the region of £2m; a serious injury accident
£200k and a slight injury accident £24k.12 If one considers that, in 2015, there were 77 fatal,
1,562 serious and 15,483 slight hit-and-run accidents, the potential overall costs to the
economy are likely to be significant.

The majority of studies examine fatal hit-and-run accidents, whereas a smaller proportion
explore hit-and-run accidents where any type of injury has been sustained. Although research
10
 Gerald and Kathleen Hill, The People’s law dictionary.
11
Benson, A.J., Arnold, L.S., Tefft, B.C., & Horrey, W.J. (2017). Hit-and-Run Crashes: Prevalence,
Contributing Factors, and Countermeasures (Research Brief). Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic
Safety
12
See Department for Transport (2015) - Average value of prevention per reported casualty and per reported
road accident.

8
has highlighted that offending drivers are commonly young, male and drivers of older
vehicles, the lack of engagement by researchers with actual offenders means that our
understanding of motivations to leave the scene of the accident – from the most minor
incident, to the most serious – is limited.13

WHY HIT AND RUN DRIVERS FLEE THE SCENE?

The motivation for hit and run:14

Reasons for leaving the Offender types Description

scene (broad categories)
No knowledge of collision The oblivious Drivers who are unsure that an
accident has occurred
Too trivial to report The uncertain departers Drivers who are unsure whether
the accident should be reported at
all – usually due to their
judgement that the accident is too
trivial.
The need for self The panickers The initial response of this group
preservation is to ‘panic’ at the scene
(regardless of blame or extent of
damage/injury), this is followed
by an overwhelming desire to
leave the scene.
The rational escapist Drivers who make a rational
decision to leave the scene (by
considering the consequences of
staying at the scene as against the
benefits of leaving). This group
may make a rational decision to
leave to either (1) hide
criminality; (2) avoid being

13
Orr Skellington K, Le Masurier P, McCoard S. (2013) Prolific Illegal Driving Behaviour: A qualitative study.
Transport Scotland.
14
Matt Hopkins, Sally Chivers and Gail Stevenson-Freer on Hit-and-run: why do drivers fail to stop after an
accident?

9
 victims of ‘scams’ or (3) to
protect their safety if the accident
has occurred in a dangerous
location.
The intimidated Drivers who face aggression
from other drivers or pedestrians
and as a consequence leave the
scene.
Alcohol/drug use The impaired or ‘non Drivers who are drunk or
compos mentis’. drugged at the time of the
accident. This may be the cause
of the accident and impairs
judgement over whether to stay
at the scene or not.

For many drivers, the incident had consequences on their lives that were considered to be a
punishment beyond the legal penalties that were received. Some suggested there was a
‘double punishment’ effect with them receiving a criminal penalty and then also being
punished by insurance companies. One in four mentioned the impact the hit-and-run had on
the cost of insurance and the lack of ease at which this could be purchased as a consequence
of the offence. This had the biggest impact on drivers who had been disqualified from
driving.15

HIT AND RUN CASES IN INDIA

Hit-and-run case has become a frequent norm of road accidents in India. Road accident
statistics indicate how roads have become an unsafe place for everyone. Over 30 percent of
all road accidents in India are hit-and-run cases, but only 10 percent of hit-and-run accident
drivers are booked. A lack of concern for the other person’s safety, coupled with rash driving,
are major contributing factors.

15
Wells, H. (2012) The Fast and the Furious: Drivers, Speed Cameras and Control in Risk Society. Surrey:
Ashgate.

10
Road accidents by type of collision- 2018 vis-à-vis 2017.16

Type of 2017 2018 %

Collision change in
2018 over
2017 in
road
accidents

No. of Persons Person No. of Persons Person

accident killed s accident killed s
s injured s injured

Hit and run 65,186 25,866 59,544 69,822 28,619 61,988 7.1

More than 20000 people lost their lives in Hit and Run cases in India alone. Hit-and-run cases
accounted for 11.4% of all accidents in 2015, an increase from 10.9% in 2014, according to
road transport ministry data. In a survey, they found that about 74% of respondents expressed
unwillingness to assist victims of road accidents.17

As hit-and-run cases increase in India, it is essential to understand the Motor Vehicles Act 18,
which explains laws imposed on any individual involved in hit-and-run accidents.

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 includes legislation which imposes severe punishment to an
individual involved in a hit-and-run accident. According to Section 161 of Motor Vehicles
Act, Hit-and-run is defined as “an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle(s) the
identity whereof cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purpose.”
 
Sections 279, 304A, and 338 of IPC are imposed on the victims of hit-and-run incidents.
16
Road accidents in India(2018) report by Ministry of Road transport and Highways transport research wing.
17
According to a study Impediments to Bystander Care in India conducted by SaveLIFE Foundation, advocacy
working for road safety, and TNS India, a global marketing research company, in July 2013
18
The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, has been passed by the Parliament and approved by the President. The
amended regulations and fines were applicable from the 1st of September 2019.

11
 Any person who drives vehicles rashly on the public road can be guilty of making an
offense under Section 279. Imprisonment for 6 months, a fine of Rs 1000 or both can be
imposed on a driver for rash driving or injuring another person on the road. The offense
committed under section 279 is bailable and is cognizable by the district magistrate. 

 If a driver who is not under the influence of alcohol leads to the death of a person in
an accident, the crime is reported under section 304A. The rider may face imprisonment for
a year which may be extended up to 2 years with a fine of more than Rs 1000 or both. 304A
is a non-bailable offense, and an individual can be convicted by lifetime imprisonment.

 In extreme cases, the police may also report a hit and drive case under 302, which is
a section related to the murder. A driver booked under Section 302, may face a death
sentence or life imprisonment.  

 In case of minors involved in such cases, the act imposes 3 years of jail to the parents
of the minor, along with some hefty fines.

 Following is a tabular representation of the increase in compensation for hit-and-run

victims as per Section 161 of the Act–
 
Circumstances Old Compensation    New Compensation
Death of the victim Rs. 25000 Rs. 200000
Bodily Injury of the victim    Rs. 12500 Rs. 50000

Along with civil responsibility, legal responsibilities are also involved in hit-and-run cases.
Legal consequences of a hit-and-run case may involve the cancellation of driver’s license
along with hefty fines and imprisonment. There are slightly higher fines if an animal is
involved in the hit-and-run situation.

 Motor Vehicles’ Accident Fund - Section 164B of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act,
1988 has introduced the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund. The fund will work towards
providing immediate financial relief to the victims of motor accidents, including the hit-and-
run victims. The amount received from the fund will be deducted from the compensation that
may be offered to the victims through the Tribunal.

12
THE TWO HIT AND RUN LANDMARK CASE LAWS IN INDIA

1999 DELHI HIT AND RUN CASE19

FACTS: In the early morning of 10 January 1999, Sanjeev Nanda was returning from a late
night party in Gurgaon with some friends. Nanda had reportedly been instructed by his
parents not to drive that night, but was driving anyway. There was a police checkpoint on
Lodhi Road and it appears that the constable may have challenged the car, though it is also
possible that the car was going so fast that it was out of control. Sanjeev's BMW crashed
through all the people at the police checkpoint, immediately killing two constables and two
others. Another policeman and another bystander died later in hospital. The seventh victim
survived.

JUDGEMENT: Nanda and his friends were arrested and charged with culpable homicide.
The case went up for re-trial and was tried on a fast-track basis. On 2 September 2008, Nanda
was convicted by a Delhi court for killing six persons.

However, on 3 August 2012, a bench of justices Deepak Verma and K S Radhakrishnan

partially set aside the Delhi High Court's order convicting Nanda under lenient provision of
304 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rash and negligent driving, but upheld the two year
jail term that was awarded to him.

The apex court, however, convicted him under the stringent provision of 304 Part II (culpable
homicide not amounting to murder) of IPC, which prescribes maximum punishment of 10
years. Flaying Nanda for running away after mowing down six people with his car on January
10, 1999, the bench said his conduct is "highly reprehensible".

The apex court directed Nanda to perform community service for two years and also asked
him to pay Rs 50 lakh to the Centre which will be used for compensating victims of road
accidents in which erring drivers could not be traced.

19
Sanjeev Nanda vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2007 CriLJ 3786

13
SALMAN KHAN 2002 HIT AND RUN CASE20

FACTS: On the night of 28th September 2002, Salman Khan’s white Toyota Land Cruiser
crashed into the pavement near the American Express Bakery at Hill Road in Bandra,
Mumbai killing one person and injuring four others. His blood samples were taken which
showed he drank more than the permissible limit. Subsequently, he was arrested but was
granted bail soon after. He was charged with various provisions under IPC, Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.

JUDGEMENT: The Sessions Court at Bombay ordered Accused Salman Salim Khan to be
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304 II, 338, 337 of the I.P.C. and under
Sections 185, 134 read with Section 187 and Sections 3(1), 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.

The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to bring the material on record to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accused was driving the vehicle, furthermore that
he was under the influence of alcohol. The Court said that there is still a doubt created as to
whether the incident has occurred due to the bursting of the tyre prior to the incident or the
tyre got burst after the incident. The Court mentioned that in every criminal trial the burden
of establishing the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution and that guilt is to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of every reasonable doubt which arises out of the
evidence adduced must necessarily be given in favour of the accused. The Court after
considering various weaknesses in the case of the prosecution, various shortcomings such as
non-examination of necessary and appropriate witnesses, the omissions and contradictions in
the evidence of the injured witnesses which go to the root of the matter, said that a doubt has
arisen as to the involvement of the appellant for the offences with which he is charged.
Therefore, the Court allowed the Criminal Appeal preferred by Salman Khan and quashed
and set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Court. He was thus acquitted of
all charges.

20
Salman Salim Khan vs The State Of Maharashtra, AIR2004SC1189 

14
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Hit-and-run crashes refer to accidents where drivers of striking vehicles directly leave the
scenes without helping victims or reporting accidents to relevant authorities. Hit-and-run
behaviours could significantly increase the probability of severe injuries and even fatalities
due to delays in emergency medical services.

Hit and run accidents with injuries or fatalities are the most horrible crimes in road safety
because of the severe amount of grief and the obstruction it causes for the normal judicial
process. This is why most people demand severe punishment for these acts.

The ‘normal’ reaction to avoid these situations is overruled by our human capacity to take
responsibility and to care about others. Alcohol can influence our decision because it makes it
more difficult to control our mind, but also because we want to hide the fact that we drive in
an intoxicated state. Other illegal acts can also influence the decision to stay. The stronger
our moral values, the easier it is to overrule our emotions and to take responsibility. By
focussing more on these values in traffic education, we can minimalize the number of hit-
and-runs. In addition, regulations and sanctions could have an influence, especially by
focussing on the prevention of DUI and uninsured driving.

15
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Motor vehicles act, 1988

 Hit-and-Run Crashes: Prevalence, Contributing Factors, and Countermeasures

(Research Brief). Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

 World Health Organization (2013). Global Status Report on Road Safety 2013.

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2013). 2011 Traffic Safety Facts
FARS/GES Annual Report

 Road accidents in India(2018) report by Ministry of Road transport and Highways,

delhi transport research wing.

 http://library.college.police.uk/docs/Hit-and-Run-2017.pdf

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242329353_Hit-and-
Run_Crashes_Use_of_Rough_Set_Analysis_with_Logistic_Regression_to_Capture_
Critical_Attributes_and_Determinants

 https://www.casemine.com/

 https://mobile.manupatra.in/

 https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=hit%20and%20run%20case

16