Playing cricket with a cork ball is not a criminal offence, says the Madras High Court

Madras High Court. Photo file | Photo author: K. PICHUMANI

The Madras High Court has quashed a case of premeditated murder, not murder, registered against the organizers of a local cricket match after a fielder died when a cork ball used in the game hit him in the chest due to an aggressive and attacking stroke by the batsman.

Justice G. Jayachandran said that in this part of the country, youngsters usually play cricket with a cork ball and that there is no ban on the use of such balls in any match. Therefore, the unfortunate death of the player cannot lead to a criminal case, he added.

However, considering the fact that the deceased D Loganathan was a third-year law student and the only son of his parents, the judge directed the Thiruvallur District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to find out if there was any available scheme to pay compensation to his family.

If such a scheme existed, the DLSA was directed to send its recommendation to the Collector within two months and the latter was directed to take a decision accordingly within two months thereafter. The judge also ordered that a certified copy of his order be issued free of charge to the father of the deceased.

Father N Dhamodhiran, a day labourer, appeared before the court in person as he could not afford a lawyer to defend on his behalf the pleas filed by match organizers R Rasu and P Iyappan to quash the first information report (FIR) registered by the Pullarambakkam police in Thiruvallur district.

Petitioners’ counsel G. Saravanabhavan told the court that the petitioner’s son voluntarily participated in a cricket match between Punnapakkam Cricket Club and Puthuvallur Cricket Club at Othikadu Lake on December 13, 2020 and died after being hit by a ball on the field.

The lawyer said that one of his clients, Mr. Rasu, was not even present at the time of the incident as he was appearing for the Police Constable Grade II examination in Perumalpattu. He added that the other plaintiff had nothing to do with the death other than being the organizer of the match.

He said the police registered an FIR under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) only because the complainant had alleged that the organizers had used a cork ball to play cricket despite the fact that they knew it could lead to serious injury and even death.

Recording his arguments, the judge said that Section 304, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, could only be invoked if the accused had acted knowingly that their actions might cause death, even if there was no intention to cause such a death.

In this case, “the deceased Loganathan voluntarily took part in the match and was injured. Neither the player nor the batsman nor the organizers had any intention to cause death or injury,” the judge said and observed that the case would surely attract an exception under Section 87 of the IPC.

The illustration to section 87 says: “If A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the agreement of each to suffer any damage that may be caused in such fencing without foul play; and if A, playing fair, injures Z, A commits no trespass.’

Therefore, “the submitted initial criminal petitions are satisfied. The FIR in the case of the respondent police is hereby quashed,” the judge concluded and told government counsel (criminal side) S. Udayakumar that the government could work out a compensation scheme for such deaths.

Justice Jayachandran said the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports Development could come up with a scheme to compensate for accidental events during sports events.