Driver Must Stop, Render Aid & Report Accident – Flight from Scene Is an Offence: Madras High Court Convicts Hit-And-Run Accused Under MV Act

“Failure To Stop And Help Is Criminal, Even If Rash Driving Isn’t Proved”,  In a critical judgment that reinforces the statutory duty of drivers in accident situations, the Madras High Court upheld the conviction of a hit-and-run accused under Section 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, despite his acquittal under Section 304A IPC for causing death by negligence. Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, dismissing two criminal revision petitions in B. Anandan v. M. Badhrinarayanan, held that "even if rash driving is not conclusively proved, the accused’s failure to stop and render aid, and to inform police, constitutes a punishable offence."

The Court further remarked: “The least that is expected of the accused is to stop the vehicle and try to save a life, and also inform the police of the same. The accused not only panicked and ran away, but also repeatedly tried to conceal the entire offence.”

The accused was fined ₹5,000, with a default sentence of one month’s simple imprisonment. The High Court refused to interfere with the appellate court’s conviction, holding that the “conviction is not only legally sustainable but morally imperative.”

"Vehicle Involvement Was Established Despite Investigation Lapses" – High Court Rejects Defence Plea of Identification Doubts

The case arose from a hit-and-run accident that occurred on 27 July 2011, at Kamarajar Salai, Chennai, where a black Ford Figo collided with a motorcycle, causing the death of the rider. The car did not stop after the accident. The First Information Report was based on the complaint of an eyewitness who had seen the vehicle flee the scene.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, B. Anandan, on all charges, including under Section 304A IPC and the Motor Vehicles Act, on the ground that the identification of the vehicle and the driver was not conclusively established. It relied on alleged inconsistencies in the registration number and the fact that the motorcycle involved was never seized. The Trial Judge doubted the prosecution’s claim that the car was left at the service centre immediately after the incident to evade detection.

However, on appeal filed by the victim’s brother, the Sessions Court reversed the acquittal under the Motor Vehicles Act and convicted Anandan under Sections 134(a), 134(b), and 187. The appellate court placed significant reliance on:

• Service records that showed the car was left for repairs for damage above the left wheel soon after the accident;

• Non-cooperation and evasive conduct of the car owner (Juliet Dola Rose) and Anandan;

• Expert opinion confirming that the height of the car and the motorcycle matched for collision;

• Witnesses who confirmed the car’s make and model and saw it fleeing the scene;

• The deliberate attempt to conceal the accident, including misrepresenting the ownership and driver details.

"Non-Seizure of Motorcycle Not Fatal When Accused's Conduct Shows Conscious Guilt": High Court Explains Evidentiary Standards

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy rejected the petitioners’ primary defence that the failure to seize the motorcycle or identify the driver conclusively vitiated the prosecution’s case. The Court observed:

“The mere fact that the motorcycle was not produced and that there were other fallacies in the investigation would not disprove the said facts.”

It held that cumulative circumstantial evidence, the forensic consistency of damage to the car, the immediate concealment attempt, and evasive responses from both the car owner and the accused firmly pointed to their culpability under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Court emphasised that Section 134 of the MV Act imposes a positive duty on the driver to render aid to the victim and inform the authorities. The violation of this duty triggers penal liability under Section 187.

"Appellate Court Took A Lenient View – Justified In Law And Morality"

The High Court also addressed the argument that the prosecution never appealed the acquittal under Section 304A IPC, and that the appeal was filed by a private party (the deceased’s brother). The Court found no fault with this, holding:

“Even a victim’s relative can maintain an appeal against acquittal. In this case, the appellate court correctly evaluated the evidence and imposed only a monetary fine, which the accused has since paid.”

The defence’s attempt to create doubt over the repair order (Ex.D.2 and Ex.D.3) and the investigation’s procedural lapses were dismissed. The Court noted that the repair centre staff (P.W.6 and P.W.8) confirmed that Anandan had dropped the vehicle, that the damage correlated with the accident, and that the owner had given contradictory statements during the investigation.

"Running Away After Causing An Accident Is Not Merely Panic – It Is Criminal"

The Court firmly condemned the act of fleeing from the scene, stating:

"This is not a mere mistake; it is a conscious choice to escape responsibility and obstruct justice. The vehicle was taken for repair the next day, not reported to police, and the accused failed to provide medical aid to the victim. These acts clearly violate the Motor Vehicles Act."

The revision petitions filed by Anandan and Juliet Dola Rose were both dismissed, and the conviction for non-compliance with Section 134(a) and (b) of the MV Act was upheld.

Date of Decision: 18 November 2025