Chhattisgarh High Court clarifies that sexual intercourse with a dead body does not fall under the legal definition of rape.

The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision in the case of Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh has sparked significant discussions regarding the legal treatment of necrophilia. The Court ruled that sexual intercourse with a dead body does not qualify as rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. This ruling came as the Court upheld the acquittal of Nagesh on the charge of rape but confirmed his conviction for other crimes, including the disappearance of evidence.
The case involved two men, Nagesh and Nitin Yadav, accused of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a minor girl. After her death, Nagesh was accused of committing sexual acts with her body. While the trial court convicted him for causing the disappearance of evidence, it acquitted him of the rape charge, noting that the victim was deceased.
The High Court explained that the provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act, which deal with the offense of rape, apply exclusively to living victims. It highlighted that, although necrophilia is a despicable act, the law as it stands does not recognize it as rape. The Court further noted that while the deceased are entitled to dignified treatment, such treatment is not covered under the definitions of rape in Indian law.
The prosecution had argued that the act of sexual abuse of a dead body violated the constitutional right to dignity under Article 21, which extends to the deceased. They contended that Nagesh’s actions were a serious infringement on the dignity of the victim, but the Court disagreed. It ruled that while the right to dignity is a fundamental right, the current legal framework does not extend this to classify necrophilia as rape.
The Court’s judgment clarified that while necrophilia is indeed a grave and disturbing act, the legal provisions surrounding rape require the victim to be alive. The Court also emphasized that there was no vested right for Seelink (the petitioner in the case) to claim the contract since the government had revised the tender conditions after including railway land in the redevelopment project.
The ruling also addressed the challenge brought by the victim’s mother, who contested the acquittal of Nagesh for rape. The Court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing its position that, under current law, necrophilia could not be considered as rape. The decision also made it clear that the law needed to be applied based on existing statutes, which do not include necrophilia as an offense under rape laws.
The case underscores a gap in the legal framework when dealing with posthumous abuse, raising the question of whether the law should be reformed to include specific provisions for crimes involving deceased victims. It also sheds light on the tension between constitutional rights and the limitations of current legal definitions, particularly in cases involving heinous acts like necrophilia.
This ruling may influence future debates on the criminalization of post-mortem abuse, with legal experts calling for a re-evaluation of how the law addresses dignity and respect for the deceased in criminal cases.