In a significant observation, the Chhattisgarh High Court has stated that while necrophilia—sexual intercourse with a dead body—is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, it does not amount to the offence of rape under Indian law. The ruling came as part of a case involving the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl, followed by the act of necrophilia by one of the accused.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru noted that Indian laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, define rape as an act committed on a living person. Citing the Karnataka High Court’s 2023 judgment in Rangaraju vs State of Karnataka, the bench reiterated that sexual acts on a dead body do not qualify as rape under Section 376 of the IPC.
The case in question involved two accused—Nitin Yadav and Neelkanth alias Neelu Nagesh. The court found that Nitin Yadav had kidnapped, raped, and murdered the minor victim. After her death, he collaborated with co-accused Neelkanth, who committed necrophilia on the deceased child’s body before burying it on a hill.
The court highlighted the need for legislative intervention to address crimes like necrophilia. Drawing on precedents such as the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in the Nithari Killing Case, it underscored that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures the dignity of both the living and the dead. “The human rights of a dead person cannot be discounted,” the court emphasized, adding that acts of necrophilia violate the principles of bodily integrity, consent, and dignity.
However, the court noted that, under existing laws, the offence of rape necessitates that the victim be alive. Consequently, Neelkanth could not be convicted under Sections 363, 376(3) of the IPC, or under the POCSO Act.
The court upheld the conviction of Nitin Yadav under multiple sections, including 376(3) (rape), 363 (kidnapping), 302 (murder), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC, along with provisions of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
While the appeal filed by the victim’s mother for Neelkanth’s conviction under rape charges was dismissed, he was found guilty under Section 201 of the IPC for disposing of evidence. The court directed Neelkanth, who had been out on bail since February 2024, to surrender and complete his remaining sentence.
The case has sparked renewed discussions on the gaps in Indian criminal law. Legal experts and activists have emphasized the urgent need to criminalize necrophilia as a distinct offence. The court’s observation serves as a stark reminder of the limitations of the existing legal framework in addressing crimes that violate human dignity, even in death.
