New Delhi: In its new ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has resolved that while necrophilia is a heinous act, it does not currently constitute rape under Indian law. The court made this unsettling observation while hearing an appeal related to the kidnapping, rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl.
The case involved two accused, Nitin Yadav, who kidnapped, raped, and murdered the child, and Neelkanth alias Neelu Nagesh, who committed necrophilia on the victim’s corpse before it was buried. The court detailed the horrific sequence of events, noting that Yadav strangled the girl, and then transported her body to his house, before seeking Nagesh’s help to dispose of it. Nagesh subsequently engaged in sexual acts with the deceased child’s body.
While acknowledging the profoundly disturbing nature of necrophilia—calling it “one of the most horrendous crimes one can think of”—the court emphasised that current Indian law, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, requires the victim to be alive for the act to be classified as rape. The court cited a Karnataka High Court judgment and noted that there is no provision under Indian law to specifically address necrophilia as a crime.
The court’s decision was based on established legal precedent, including the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in the Nithari Killing Case. While acknowledging the violation of bodily integrity, consent, and dignity inherent in necrophilia, even with a deceased victim, the court underscored the lack of a specific legal provision to convict Nagesh for the act itself. They highlighted the constitutional right to a dignified death (Article 21), further emphasising the gravity of the offence despite its legal limitations.
The court noted: “The depredations committed by the accused upon dead bodies of his victims cannot be turned a blind eye. The Court laid down principles of bodily integrity, consent, and dignity and also observed that in the case of rape upon a dead body, all three of these principles are violated. Even though Indian criminal laws do not recognise ‘necrophilia’ as a crime in itself, at the same time the human rights of a dead person cannot be discounted.”
Despite dismissing the appeal against Nagesh’s acquittal on rape charges, the court upheld his conviction under Section 201 IPC for destroying evidence. Yadav’s conviction under various sections of the IPC, including those pertaining to rape, murder, kidnapping, and destruction of evidence, was also upheld. Nagesh, who had been granted bail in February 2024, was ordered to surrender to serve his sentence for the destruction of evidence charge.
The court further stated: “raping a dead body is one of the most horrendous crimes one can think of but the fact of the matter is that as on date, the said accused cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 376 (3) of the IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 as the offence of rape was committed with a dead body and for convicting an offence under the aforementioned Sections, the victim should be alive.”
