Such a person is prima facie guilty of negligence if his vehicle dashes into something or

someone unless he has reason to explain that he did everything in his power to keep the
vehicle under control but the accident was inevitable. This principle was established in the
landmark case of Ratlam v.s Emperor.

In the case of Chintaram v.s State of Madhya Pradesh , the deceased was walking on the
middle of the road so the accused was driving by the left of the road trying to keep a distance
from her. When the accused reached close to the deceased she abruptly took a left turn and
got struck by the motorcycle. In this case, the accused was not negligent. The erratic decision
of the victim did not give any reasonable time to the motorcyclist to avoid her so he was
acquitted.

Salman Khan’s case regarding the hit and run.

Alistair Anthony Pareira vs State of Maharashtra case (2012) ..

In order to impose criminal liability on the accused, it must be found as a fact that collusion
was entirely or mainly due to the rashness or negligence; [Munile Sao v. State of Biha

To see the other side of the same coin in Satnam Singh v. State of Rajasthan it could not be
proved that the truck driver deliberately crushed the man on the scooter, thus the conviction
was made under section 304-A of I.P.C. Again in Murari v. State of M.P. it was critically
observed that truck driver knew that the passengers were sitting on the slabs he was carrying.
But still he drove negligently and despite the protest by passengers caused an accident,
leading to the death of a woman and two children.