The Chhattisgarh High Court has stated that engaging in sexual acts with a dead body, known as necrophilia, is among the most appalling crimes. However, the court clarified that such an act does not fall under the definition of ‘rape’ as per the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The observation was made by a bench consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, who noted that for an act to constitute rape, the victim must be alive at the time of the offence. Referring to a Karnataka High Court judgment in Rangaraju vs State of Karnataka (2023), the bench highlighted that Indian laws do not categorize sexual activity with a corpse as “rape” and, therefore, it does not warrant punishment under Section 376 of the IPC.

The court’s remarks arose during a case involving a nine-year-old girl who was abducted, raped, and murdered by Nitin Yadav. Following the crime, the victim’s body was transported to a hill for burial. Before the burial, the co-accused, Neelkanth, also known as Neelu Nagesh, engaged in necrophilia with the victim’s remains.

The court established that Nitin Yadav had strangled the child, causing her death. He then transported her body, along with her clothing and slippers, to his residence, where he concealed it. Later, he informed Neelkanth of the incident and sought his assistance in disposing of the corpse. Together, they carried the body to a hill where Neelkanth committed necrophilia before burying it.

Citing the Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Surendra Koli vs State of Uttar Pradesh—famously associated with the Nithari killings—the bench underscored the constitutional guarantee of dignity in both life and death under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court remarked that desecrating a dead body through acts like necrophilia violates the principles of bodily integrity, consent, and dignity, even though Indian law does not explicitly criminalize necrophilia. It emphasized that human rights extend to the deceased, and such acts cannot be overlooked.

The bench acknowledged the grave nature of the crime, stating, "Raping a corpse is among the most appalling offenses imaginable." However, it reiterated that the absence of explicit legal provisions criminalizing necrophilia meant the accused could not be convicted under Sections 363 and 376(3) of the IPC, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, or Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which all require the victim to be alive.

As a result, the court dismissed the mother of the victim’s appeal challenging Neelkanth’s acquittal on charges of rape. Neelkanth, however, was convicted under Section 201 of the IPC for destroying evidence. Meanwhile, the court upheld the trial court's conviction of Nitin Yadav under Sections 376(3), 363, 302, and 201 of the IPC, as well as Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Lastly, the court directed Neelkanth, who had been released on bail in February 2024, to surrender and serve the remaining sentence under Section 201 of the IPC for tampering with evidence.

(Input from various sources)

(Rehash/Sai Sindhuja K/MSM)