Hit-And-Run Incidents And Vehicular Manslaughter
⚖️ I. Meaning and Legal Framework
1. Hit-and-Run
A hit-and-run is an incident where the driver of a vehicle causes an accident (injuring or killing a person, or causing damage to property) and then flees the scene without offering aid or reporting the matter to authorities.
Under Indian Law:
Section 279, IPC – Rash or negligent driving endangering human life.
Section 304A, IPC – Causing death by negligence.
Section 134, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Duty of the driver to stop and provide information or assistance after an accident.
Section 187, Motor Vehicles Act – Punishment for failing to render assistance or report to police.
Under Common Law (e.g., USA/UK):
Failing to stop and render aid after a collision is a criminal offense, often charged as "Leaving the Scene of an Accident" or "Failure to Report an Accident."
2. Vehicular Manslaughter
Vehicular manslaughter (or culpable homicide by vehicle) occurs when a person causes the death of another through grossly negligent, reckless, or impaired driving (for instance, due to intoxication).
Under Indian Law:
Section 304A, IPC – Causing death by negligence (non-intentional).
Section 304, IPC – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (if there was knowledge that death was likely).
Under U.S./U.K. Law:
Vehicular Manslaughter or Vehicular Homicide – Distinguished based on degree of negligence (ordinary vs. gross vs. reckless).
⚖️ II. Key Judicial Decisions and Case Analyses
Below are five detailed case laws demonstrating how courts interpret and punish hit-and-run and vehicular manslaughter cases.
Case 1: Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Alister Pareira, while driving his car under the influence of alcohol in Mumbai, lost control and ran over several sleeping pavement dwellers, killing seven and injuring eight others.
Issue:
Whether the act amounted to mere negligence under Section 304A IPC or to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC).
Held:
The Court held that since the accused was aware that drunken driving at high speed in a crowded area could likely cause death, the case fell under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
The sentence of seven years imprisonment was upheld.
Significance:
This case made it clear that drunk driving leading to death can attract harsher punishment under Section 304 IPC if there is knowledge of probable death, not just negligence under Section 304A.
Case 2: State of Punjab v. Saurabh Bakshi (2015) 5 SCC 182
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The respondent, while driving a car at high speed, caused the death of a motorcyclist and fled the scene. The High Court reduced his sentence to the period already undergone (24 days).
Held:
The Supreme Court criticized the leniency and enhanced the sentence to six months imprisonment under Section 304A IPC.
Observation:
The Court remarked that lenient sentencing in such cases undermines deterrence and public confidence.
It emphasized that rash and negligent driving causing death cannot be treated lightly.
Case 3: Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. (2008) 1 SCC 791
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The accused, driving a bus rashly, hit a cyclist causing death. The defense argued that it was a mere accident with no mens rea (intention).
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld conviction under Section 304A IPC, reiterating that the offense is one of negligence, not intention.
Principle Laid Down:
For conviction under Section 304A, it is sufficient to show gross negligence or recklessness, not intention.
The distinction between culpable homicide and negligent death depends on whether the accused knew death was a likely result.
Case 4: State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar (2009) 15 SCC 563
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The driver of a truck hit a scooter, killing both riders, and fled the scene. The trial court acquitted him, but the High Court convicted.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, stating that the act of fleeing was indicative of consciousness of guilt.
Observation:
The Court emphasized the duty of care owed by drivers and that leaving the accident site worsens the gravity of negligence.
Case 5: R. v. Andrew (1937) A.C. 576 (Privy Council, UK)
Facts:
A lorry driver killed a pedestrian while overtaking recklessly.
Held:
The Privy Council held that the driver was guilty of manslaughter, as his act involved a reckless disregard for life beyond mere negligence.
Principle:
Ordinary negligence ≠ manslaughter.
Gross negligence, showing indifference to the risk of death, constitutes manslaughter.
This decision influenced Indian courts’ interpretation of the difference between negligence (304A IPC) and culpable homicide (304 IPC).
Case 6: People v. Watson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 290 (U.S.)
Facts:
The defendant, driving under intoxication, ran a red light at high speed, killing two people.
Held:
The California Supreme Court held that such conduct could amount to second-degree murder because the driver acted with implied malice — i.e., conscious disregard for life.
Significance:
This case is a cornerstone in U.S. law distinguishing vehicular manslaughter (negligence) from second-degree murder (reckless indifference).
⚖️ III. Distinction Summary
| Aspect | Hit-and-Run | Vehicular Manslaughter |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of Offense | Fleeing from accident scene | Causing death by negligent or reckless driving |
| Intention Required | Intention to avoid responsibility | Negligence or knowledge of probable death |
| Key Legal Provisions (India) | Sec. 134, 187 MVA; Sec. 279 IPC | Sec. 304A IPC / Sec. 304 IPC |
| Punishment | Imprisonment + Fine (MVA) | Up to 2 years (304A) or up to 10 years/life (304) |
| Moral Gravity | Evading responsibility | Causing death by act or omission |
⚖️ IV. Conclusion
Hit-and-run incidents and vehicular manslaughter represent serious social and moral wrongs. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly stressed that:
Road safety is a matter of public interest, and
Courts must impose deterrent punishment to reflect the sanctity of human life.
Courts distinguish between mere negligence (Section 304A IPC) and culpable homicide (Section 304 IPC) based on the driver’s mental state — particularly, whether they knew their act was likely to cause death.
RELATED Blog
0 comments