The Chhattisgarh High Court has deemed necrophilia a “most horrendous crime,” yet has specified that it does not fall under the definition of ‘Rape’ as per the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru noted that for an act to be deemed as rape, the victim needs to be alive. Referencing a judgment from the Karnataka High Court (Rangaraju vs State of Karnataka, 2023), the court highlighted that Indian legislation does not classify sexual intercourse with a deceased individual as “rape” under Section 376 of the IPC.
The Necrophilia Case
This remark emerged from a case concerning a 9-year-old girl who was abducted, assaulted, and killed by the defendant, Nitin Yadav. After the murder, the assailant and his accomplice Neelkanth (almost) transported the victim’s body to a hill for burial, where acts of necrophilia were committed on the corpse. The court validated that Yadav had strangled the girl, resulting in her death, and subsequently hid her body and clothes in his residence. Later, he told Neelkanth about the event and requested help in getting rid of the body. They moved the body to a hill, where Neelkanth performed necrophilia before they interred her.
Reffering To Old Citings
Citing earlier rulings, especially the Allahabad High Court’s decision in the Surendra Koli case (Nithari Killings), the court referred to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees both the right to live with dignity and the right to die with dignity. It emphasized that the abuses suffered by the victims should not be ignored. The court defined principles of bodily autonomy, consent, and respect, recognizing that these are violated in cases of necrophilia. Consequently, although necrophilia might not be officially classified as a crime in India.
Verdict Of The Necrophilia Case
The court addressed the grave crime of violating a corpse, classifying it as one of the worst acts possible. However, it clarified that current laws prevent convicting Neelkanth for serious offenses under specific sections of the IPC and POCSO Act, as these mandates require the victim to be alive. Consequently, Neelkanth’s acquittal was upheld despite being found guilty of evidence tampering under Section 201 IPC. In contrast, the court confirmed the convictions of Nitin Yadav on multiple charges, affirming his direct involvement in the crimes. Neelkanth was ordered to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence for tampering with evidence following a prior bail in February 2024. These judicial decisions reveal the complexities within the legal system regarding how victim status impacts serious crime adjudication.
