The high incidence of hit-and-run accidents in India presents a persistent challenge to both the criminal justice system and public safety. In these cases, offenders commonly evade responsibility, leaving victims and their families struggling to obtain justice and accountability. Recognizing the shortcomings of existing laws in addressing these specific offences, the Indian legislature has enacted significant amendments to strengthen deterrence and ensure timely reporting.

This article examines the evolving legal framework surrounding hit-and-run incidents, focusing on the new provisions and emphasizing that the offence is committed only when the driver flees the scene and fails to promptly report the incident to authorities.

Historical Context - Section 304A of the IPC:

Historically, hit-and-run cases in India were primarily prosecuted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which addresses causing death by negligence. While this section provided a legal basis to prosecute drivers responsible for fatal accidents, its application to hit-and-run scenarios proved inadequate.

The maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment under Section 304A IPC often failed to reflect the severity of the offence, particularly when the driver deliberately fled the scene to avoid legal consequences. This lenient penalty did little to deter such callous behaviour and sometimes emboldened offenders.

• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) - A New Legal Landscape:
  The newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), intended to replace the IPC, introduces significant changes to the legal framework concerning hit-and-run cases. Section 106 of the BNS specifically addresses "Causing death by rash or negligent driving and fleeing from the scene of the incident without reporting." This new provision represents a crucial step forward in recognizing the aggravated nature of hit-and-run offenses. It stipulates that anyone who causes the death of a person through rash or negligent driving and flees the scene without reporting it to a police officer or Magistrate soon after the incident will be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to ten years and will also be liable to a fine.
   
• Enhanced Punishment - A Stronger Deterrent:
  The increased punishment, raising the maximum imprisonment from two years under the old Section 304A IPC to a potential ten years under Section 106 BNS, reflects a more stringent approach toward hit-and-run offenders. This change addresses growing societal concern regarding the lack of accountability in such cases and aims to instil a greater sense of responsibility among drivers. The enhanced penalty serves as a stronger deterrent, signalling that evading legal consequences after causing a fatal accident will result in significantly harsher repercussions.
   
• Addressing Non-Fatal Injuries - Section 106(2) of the BNS:
  Furthermore, Section 106(2) of the BNS introduces an additional provision to address situations where the offender escapes from the scene without reporting it to a police officer or Magistrate soon after the incident, even if the injury caused does not result in death. In such cases, the punishment can be severe, with a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years and a fine. This provision acknowledges the gravity of fleeing the scene and failing to report, even in cases of non-fatal injuries, emphasizing the importance of accountability and due process.
   
• The Problem of Unidentified Vehicles - Statistics from Delhi:
  Statistics from the Delhi Road Crash Report of 2021 highlight the concerning prevalence of hit-and-run incidents, with 555 cases (46.01% of total cases) involving unknown vehicle registration numbers. This alarming figure underscores the frequency with which offenders escape without identification, making it incredibly difficult for law enforcement agencies to track them down and bring them to justice. The new provisions, particularly the emphasis on reporting, directly address this issue by creating a legal obligation for drivers to come forward.
   
• The Crucial Condition - Escape Coupled with Non-Reporting:
  A significant aspect of the newly introduced Section 106(2) of the BNS is the crucial condition that the offence is committed only if escape from the scene is coupled with non-reporting to the Police or Magistrate soon after the incident. This is a critical element that defines the offence of "hit and run" under the new law. It clarifies that the mere act of causing death or injury by negligent driving is distinct from the aggravated offence of hit and run, which requires the additional element of the driver fleeing the scene and deliberately failing to inform the authorities about the incident.
  
  This conditionality is important for several reasons. First, it distinguishes between accidents where the driver might stay at the scene to assist the victim and cooperate with the authorities and those where the driver consciously chooses to evade legal responsibility. Second, it places a direct legal obligation on the driver to report the incident promptly, encouraging responsible behaviour and facilitating timely investigation and aid to the victim. The phrase "soon after the incident" implies a reasonable timeframe within which the driver is expected to report, preventing undue delay that could hinder the investigation and access to justice for the victim.
   
• The "Golden Hour" and the Importance of Immediate Reporting:
  The introduction of Section 106(2) aims to cover hit-and-run accidents and ensure immediate reporting. This is intrinsically linked to the aim of saving the victim within the critical 'Golden Hour,' a term introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in 2019. The 'Golden Hour' refers to the crucial first hour after a traumatic injury, during which prompt medical attention significantly increases the chances of survival. By making it a legal obligation to report the accident immediately, the law intends to facilitate quicker medical assistance for the victims of hit-and-run incidents, potentially saving lives.
   
• Distinguishing Fear from Intent to Evade Justice:
  Moreover, the text emphasizes that punishment under Section 106(2) is not solely based on the driver escaping the scene to avoid potential mob violence. The offence is committed only if the escape from the scene is coupled with non-reporting to the Police or Magistrate soon after the incident. This clarification is crucial, distinguishing between a driver fleeing out of fear of immediate mob violence and a driver fleeing to evade legal consequences without any intention of reporting.
  
  The law recognizes the potential for volatile situations at accident sites and acknowledges that a driver's immediate departure might be motivated by self-preservation. However, the obligation to report to the authorities "soon after" remains, ensuring that the driver is still held accountable through the legal process rather than through extra-judicial means.

Culpability for Hit and Run: Escape Due to Fear of Mob Violence:
Beyond the penalties for causing injury by negligent driving, Section 106(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) further addresses the act of leaving the scene of an accident without promptly reporting it to authorities, even when the injuries sustained are not fatal; this carries a potential punishment of up to ten years imprisonment and a fine, underscoring the legal emphasis on accountability and adherence to due process, regardless of the severity of the injury.

Driver Culpability and Fear of Mob Violence:

The question of whether a driver is culpable under Section 106(2) of the BNS when fleeing an accident scene due to fear of mob violence is complex and depends heavily on the specific circumstances. While the law penalizes leaving the scene without reporting, it also acknowledges the fundamental right to self-preservation.

A driver fleeing out of a genuine and reasonable fear of immediate mob violence would likely have a valid defence or mitigating circumstance. This is because:

• Mens Rea (Criminal Intent): To be found guilty of a crime, the prosecution must prove mens rea, or criminal intent. If the driver's primary motivation for fleeing was to escape imminent danger, rather than to evade responsibility for the accident, it weakens the case for criminal intent related to the act of fleeing.
   
• Necessity/Self-Defence: The legal principles of necessity and self-defence may apply. If the driver reasonably believed they were in imminent danger of serious bodily harm, fleeing could be argued as a justifiable act of self-preservation, even if it technically violates Section 106(2).
   
• Contextual Circumstances: Courts meticulously examine the specific facts. Strong evidence of an angry, violent mob forming at the accident site is critical to establishing the reasonableness of the driver's fear. Factors like the mob's behaviour, threats made, and past history of violence in the area would be considered.
   
• Subsequent Reporting: Critically, the driver's actions after fleeing are important. If the driver reports the accident to the police as soon as they reach a safe location, this can significantly mitigate the initial failure to report at the scene. It demonstrates an intention to fulfil their legal obligations once safety is secured.

Important Considerations:
Burden of Proof: The driver bears the burden of demonstrating that their primary reason for fleeing was a legitimate fear of mob violence. This requires presenting credible evidence, such as witness testimonies, video footage, or documented threats.

Reasonableness of Fear: The court will assess whether the driver's fear was reasonable, given the situation. A mere assertion of fear is insufficient; there must be evidence of an actual, credible threat.

Timeliness of Reporting: A significant delay in reporting the accident after reaching safety could negate the defence. The driver must report the incident within a reasonable timeframe, considering the circumstances.

While Section 106(2) criminalizes leaving the scene without reporting, a driver fleeing due to a genuine and reasonable fear of imminent mob violence could have a strong defense or mitigating argument. The focus shifts to the driver's intent, the reasonableness of their fear, and their subsequent actions. Promptly reporting the accident once safe is crucial.

This is inherently a complex legal matter, and the ultimate determination rests with the court based on the totality of the evidence presented. Seeking immediate legal counsel is strongly advised in such situations. The guidance of an attorney can help ensure that the driver's rights are protected and that their defense is presented effectively.

Conclusion - A Victim-Centric Approach:
In conclusion, the amendments introduced in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita regarding hit-and-run cases represent a significant step toward a more robust and victim-centric legal framework. The enhanced penalties and the specific focus on the act of fleeing and failing to report underscore the aggravated nature of these offences. The crucial condition that the offence is committed only when escape is coupled with non-reporting clarifies the scope of the law and emphasizes the importance of timely reporting for ensuring justice and facilitating prompt medical assistance.

By creating a clear legal obligation for drivers to report accidents, the new provisions aim to deter hit-and-run incidents, promote responsible behaviour on the roads, and ultimately provide a greater sense of security and justice for potential victims. The effectiveness of these new provisions will depend on their rigorous enforcement and the awareness created among the public and law enforcement agencies.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565