The Chhattisgarh High Court has emphasized the need for legislative reforms to address crimes involving necrophilia, stating that the dignity of individuals extends beyond death. The court’s observations came in a judgment delivered on December 10, 2024, in Criminal Appeals No. 1920/2023, 142/2024, and ACQA No. 215/2024, which dealt with the brutal rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl and the subsequent sexual assault on her corpse.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, upheld the life sentence of the primary accused, Nitin Yadav, but ruled that the second accused, Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh, could not be convicted of rape under Section 376 IPC, as Indian law does not currently recognize necrophilia as a crime.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to an incident that took place on October 19, 2018, in the Gariyaband district of Chhattisgarh. The nine-year-old victim, belonging to a Scheduled Caste community, was sexually assaulted and strangled to death by Nitin Yadav. The crime did not end there—Yadav and his accomplice, Neelkanth, transported her body to a nearby hill, where Neelkanth sexually assaulted the corpse before burying it.
The trial court convicted Nitin Yadav under Sections 302 (murder), 376(3) (rape of a minor), 363 (kidnapping), and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC, along with sections of the POCSO Act and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Neelkanth was convicted only under Section 201 IPC for assisting in disposing of the body, leading the victim’s mother to file an appeal challenging his acquittal on charges of rape and murder.
Court’s Observations
While dismissing the appeal, the High Court lamented the lack of specific provisions in Indian law to penalize necrophilia. In its judgment, the court stated:
“Dignity and fair treatment is not only available to a living man but also to his dead body. Every deceased individual is entitled to respectful treatment, and acts such as necrophilia flagrantly violate these rights.”
The court cited constitutional protections under Article 21, which guarantees the right to dignity even after death, as recognized in judgments like Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union of India (1995). However, it acknowledged that existing legal definitions of rape under Section 375 IPC apply only to acts committed against living individuals.
Key Evidence in the Case
The prosecution built a strong case based on forensic and circumstantial evidence:
1. Postmortem Findings: The medical examination revealed that the victim had been sexually assaulted before her death. The hymen was ruptured, and strangulation marks were evident on the neck.
2. DNA Evidence: Forensic analysis of swabs collected from the victim confirmed the involvement of both accused.
3. Confessions: In their statements, both accused admitted their roles in the crime. Neelkanth confessed to sexually assaulting the corpse out of a “loss of control.”
4. Material Recovery: Items including the victim’s anklets, clothing, and a spade used to bury her body were recovered based on information provided by the accused.
Legal Findings
The High Court upheld Nitin Yadav’s conviction and multiple life sentences, ruling that the evidence against him was irrefutable. On the other hand, the court agreed with the trial court’s reasoning that Neelkanth could not be convicted under Section 376 IPC, as the law does not criminalize necrophilia. The bench clarified that while such acts are morally reprehensible, the absence of explicit legal provisions precludes punishment under existing statutes.
The court observed:
“While the law remains silent, such heinous acts shock the collective conscience and undermine the fundamental dignity that every human being, living or deceased, is entitled to.”
