Delhi court upholds 2-year jail term for man in 2016 Connaught Place hit-and-run case

A Delhi court has upheld the two-year prison sentence awarded to a man in a 2016 hit-and-run case in Connaught Place here.

Additional Sessions Judge Shefali Barnala Tandon was hearing the appeal of Rohit Kumar, who had been convicted by a magistrate in February 2025 under IPC sections 279 (rash driving) and 304A (causing death by negligence).

According to the prosecution, the case dates back to July 7, 2016, when Kumar’s car hit another car at the Connaught Place’s outer circle and rammed into a pedestrian, Kundan, who later succumbed of head injuries.

The prosecution said Kumar had fled the scene immediately after the accident. In an order dated July 1, the court said, “The subsequent conduct of a driver plays an important role while sentencing him for the offences of rash and negligent driving. Fleeing from the accident site without providing help is considered a punishable hit-and-run, strictly prohibited by law.”

It said under the Motor Vehicles Act provision, drivers are legally obligated to stop immediately and take all reasonable steps to take the injured person to the nearest medical hospital, but, in the present case, the appellant fled away immediately after causing the accident.

“With the ocular evidence, medical evidence as well as documentary evidence proved on record, it is held that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the appellant/accused for the offence under sections 279 and 304A of the IPC,” the court said.

Rejecting Kumar’s plea for leniency, the court upheld the trial court’s concurrent sentences of two years of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 10,000 for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC, and three months imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1,000 under Section 279 of the IPC.

It directed that a copy of this order be sent to the magistrate for execution of sentence and necessary compliance on Monday. In its order the court noted the testimony of an on-duty police officer, who testified that the car was being driven in a “zig-zag manner” at very high speed and dragged the victim for some distance on the footpath.

The court also considered the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, which showed the front bumper dislocated and the airbags deployed.

“The opening of airbags only means that the accident/collision was with great impact and force that it resulted in the death of the deceased while damaging the other vehicle,” the court said, adding the medical and ocular evidence pointed squarely toward Kumar’s guilt.