Madras High Court. File photo
| Photo Credit: K. PICHUMANI
The Madras High Court has quashed a case of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, registered against the organisers of a local cricket match after a fielder died when a cork ball used in the game hit his chest due to an aggressive and attacking shot played by the batsman.
Justice G. Jayachandran said it was common in this part of the country for youngsters to play cricket with a cork ball and that there was no prohibition for the use of such balls in any match. Therefore, an unfortunate death of a player could not 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 to his parents, the judge directed the Tiruvallur District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to find out if there was any scheme available to pay monetary compensation to his family.
If there was any such scheme, the DLSA was directed to forward its recommendation to the Collector within two months, and the latter was directed to take an appropriate decision within two months thereafter. The judge also ordered issuance of a certified copy of his order, free of cost, to the father of the deceased.
The father N. Dhamodhiran, a daily-wage worker, had appeared before the court in person since he had no means to engage a lawyer to argue on his behalf in the petitions filed by the match organisers R. Rasu and P. Iyappan to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered by Pullarambakkam police in Tiruvallur district.
The petitioners’ counsel G. Saravanabhavan told the court that the complainant’s son had voluntarily participated in the cricket match between Punnapakkam Cricket Club and Puthuvallur Cricket Club at Othikadu lake on December 13, 2020, and died after the ball hit him on the field.
The counsel said one of his clients, Mr. Rasu, was not even present at the time of the incident as he was writing the Grade II police constable examination at Perumalpattu. He added that the other petitioner had nothing to do with the death but for having been the organiser of the match.
He said the police had registered the FIR under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) just because the complainant had claimed that the organisers used a cork ball to play the cricket match despite knowing that it could lead to serious injuries and even death.
After recording his submissions, the judge said Section 304, which prescribes a maximum punishment of 10 years of imprisonment, could be invoked only if there was an overtact on the part of the accused with the knowledge that their act was likely to cause death even if there was no intention to cause such death.
In the present case, “the deceased Loganathan has voluntarily participated in the match and got injured. Neither, the batsman nor the organisers had any intention to cause death or hurt,” the judge said and observed that the case would squarely attract the exception under Section 87 of IPC.
An illustration to Section 87 reads: “If A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence.”
Therefore, “the present criminal original petitions are allowed. The FIR on the file of the first respondent police is hereby quashed,” the judge concluded and told Government Advocate (criminal side) S. Udayakumar that the government could come up with a scheme for compensating such deaths.
Justice Jayachandran said the Department of Youth Welfare and Sports Development could frame a scheme for compensating the eventualities that occur during sporting events.
Published – November 04, 2024 03:02 pm IST
