The Karnataka High Court recently issued a ruling in the case of Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi v State of Karnataka, stating that rape committed on the dead body of a woman, also known as necrophilia, would not be considered a crime under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, consisting of Justices B Veerappa and Venkatesh Naik, also stated that necrophilia would not fall under the purview of unnatural offenses outlined in Section 377 of the IPC.
According to the court, after carefully examining Sections 375 and 377 of the IPC, it was evident that a dead body could not be categorized as a human being or a person. Therefore, the provisions of Section 375 or 377 would not be applicable to such cases. However, the court emphasized the need for the central government to amend the IPC to criminalize necrophilia, either by modifying Section 377 or introducing a separate legal provision.
The court urged the central government to take action within six months to protect the dignity of the deceased's body and to ensure that a person's right to their dead body, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, is respected. Additionally, the court directed the state government to install CCTV cameras in all government mortuaries and private hospitals to prevent offenses against the bodies of deceased women. The state was also instructed to maintain hygiene in mortuaries, safeguard confidentiality and privacy, remove infrastructure barriers, and sensitize mortuary staff.
The case before the court involved an appeal against a conviction for murder and rape of a 21-year-old woman. The appellant argued that since the prosecution claimed that the murder occurred before the sexual assault on the victim's dead body, the offense under Section 376 (rape) should not be applicable. The appellant contended that the act should be considered as necrophilia, which is not explicitly covered by the IPC, and thus sought acquittal.
After examining the relevant sections of the IPC, the court concluded that the act could not be classified as rape punishable under Section 376. It characterized the act as sadism and necrophilia but found that there was no provision in the IPC to punish the accused under Section 376. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction for rape, but the appellant was found guilty of murder based on incriminating evidence and lack of explanation for the circumstances surrounding the crime.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining and respecting the dignity of a deceased human being's body, stating that the right to dignity extends to the deceased as well. It noted the absence of specific legislation in India, including in the IPC, to uphold the dignity and protect the rights of a deceased woman's body. Therefore, the court called on the government to revisit the law, and copies of the judgment were sent to the central and state governments by the court's registrar general.
Advocates Hanumantharaya CH, Abhinaya K, and KV Manoj represented the appellant, while the respondents were represented by State Public Prosecutor Kiran S Javali and Additional State Public Prosecutor Vijaykumar Majage. Advocate Nithin Ramesh served as the Amicus Curiae in the case.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Karnataka High Court ruling necrophilia rape Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 375 Section 377 amendment dignity Central government mortuaries CCTV cameras mortuary hygiene privacy sensitization conviction murder appeal Sessions Court appellant prosecution sadism right to dignity legislation government registrar general advocates State Public Prosecutor Amicus Curiae.
