Facts of the Case:

The case revolves around an accused individual who was initially convicted by the trial court under Sections 302 (murder) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the dual offences of murdering a 21-year-old woman and subsequently engaging in necrophilic acts with her dead body. Following the trial, the accused appealed to the Karnataka High Court, which partly allowed the appeal. The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder, but acquitted the accused of rape charges, ruling that sexual assault on a dead body does not fall under the purview of Section 376 IPC, as necrophilia is not specifically defined as a criminal offence under Indian law. The Karnataka High Court recommended that the Indian Penal Code be amended to address the issue of necrophilia, noting the importance of ensuring the dignity of the dead.

Contentions of the Petitioner (State of Karnataka):

The State filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court’s acquittal of the accused on rape charges. The petitioner argued that the term ‘body’ under Section 375(c) of the Indian Penal Code (which defines rape) should be interpreted to include a dead body as well. The petitioner contended that under the 7th description of the definition of rape, which involves situations where consent cannot be communicated (such as in the case of an unconscious or dead person), sexual intercourse with a dead body should similarly be deemed to be rape. The State further argued that the absence of consent from a deceased person should still be considered a violation of the dignity of the individual and, hence, should fall under the provisions of rape under Section 376.

Contentions of the Respondent (Accused):

The respondent, the accused in the case, argued that necrophilia, defined as an erotic attraction to corpses, does not constitute an offence under Indian law. He highlighted that neither Section 375 nor Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code defines acts involving dead bodies as criminal acts under the term ‘rape’ or ‘unnatural sex.’ The accused contested the application of the rape charge, asserting that the law does not recognize necrophilic acts as an offence. He argued that the High Court’s acquittal on rape charges should be upheld, as no explicit provision under Indian law criminalizes sexual acts with dead bodies.

Court’s Observations:

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, examined the arguments presented by both sides. The Court noted the core issue was whether necrophilia could be classified as rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The bench observed that the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, particularly Sections 375 and 377, do not include acts involving dead bodies within the definition of rape or unnatural offences. In the absence of such specific legislation addressing necrophilia, the Court reiterated that it could not interfere with the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused of rape charges.

The Court also highlighted the High Court’s observation that while necrophilia is not criminalized under Indian law, the practice itself could be considered a “psychosexual disorder,” as recognized by international diagnostic manuals like the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders). It further acknowledged the need for a legal framework to address the dignity and rights of deceased persons. The Court referred to the High Court’s suggestion that the legislature should consider enacting specific laws to address the issue of necrophilia and preserve the dignity of dead bodies, aligning with recommendations from jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa.

The Court was also mindful of the fact that while necrophilia was not recognized as a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code, the High Court’s recommendations for legal reform were valid and should be brought to the attention of the legislature.

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, declined to interfere with the Karnataka High Court’s decision. The bench emphasized that since necrophilia is not an offence under Indian law, the acquittal of the accused on charges of rape was justified. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Karnataka, thus upholding the High Court’s acquittal on the rape charge, while confirming the conviction for murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

The Court observed, “Since nothing has been shown to this Court that necrophilia is an offence, we see no reason to take a different view than the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.” The Court also dismissed any pending interlocutory applications in the matter.

The bench expressed its concern over the issue of necrophilia and reiterated the High Court’s recommendation for legislative action to penalize such acts and uphold the dignity of deceased persons, which it deemed essential for the protection of human dignity in India.

Credits: Deeksha Rai