{"id":293614,"date":"2023-06-01T17:30:33","date_gmt":"2023-06-01T12:00:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=293614"},"modified":"2023-06-07T15:53:12","modified_gmt":"2023-06-07T10:23:12","slug":"karnataka-high-court-recommends-central-government-make-law-on-necrophilia-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/01\/karnataka-high-court-recommends-central-government-make-law-on-necrophilia-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Government should either amend S. 377 IPC or bring in a new provision to make Necrophilia and sadism punishable with life imprisonment: Karnataka High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Karnataka High Court:<\/b> In the instant appeal seeking to set aside the conviction under Sections 376<\/a> and 302<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, where the question arose that whether rape on a woman’s dead body attracts the provisions of Section 376<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, the Division Bench of B. Veerappa<\/b>* and Venkatesh Naik T., JJ., held that, commission of rape on a woman’s dead body cannot be termed as “rape’ to attract Section 376<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a>. However, the same would be considered as “necrophilia”. The Court further recommended the Central Government to consider addressing “necrophilia” either by amending Section 377<\/a>, Penal Code 1860<\/a> or by introducing a specific penal provision for the same.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/b><\/span> The matter originated in 2015 when brother of the deceased- victim found her dead body with her throat slit and since the clothes on her person were strewn across the area, it was suspected that she had been raped as well. The Police registered the case and began its investigations and apprehended the accused-appellant and the matter reached the Sessions Court.<\/p>\n

The Sessions Judge found that the accused-appellant first murdered the victim while she was returning home from the computer class. After the murder, the accused-appellant committed rape on her. The accused-appellant was convicted under Sections 376<\/a> and 302<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge was then challenged before the High Court.<\/p>\n

Contentions:<\/b><\/span> The respondents contended that after the 1983 amendment of Section 375(a) and (c)<\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a>, “sexual offences” includes rape on a dead body, therefore the conviction is justified.<\/p>\n

Submissions by the Amicus Curiae:<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n