Imagine a person who is mute and locked within a black box. Suddenly, a shadowy figure appears, gratifies their own desire with the person, and then disappears. Now, the individual cannot invoke Article 21 nor claim the status of a victim of sexual assault simply because they are not alive.
Now imagine, someone rapes a person and then kills them — they are liable for both rape and murder. But on the same hand, if someone kills a person and then rapes the corpse, they will be liable merely for murder. That person is not convicted as a rapist as per Indian law.[i]
The above instances are not fictional narratives but reflect the grim realities within the framework of Indian criminal law. The Honourable High Court of Chhattisgarh, in a recent judgment Neelkanth vs. State of Chhattisgarh[ii], where a minor girl was kidnapped, killed, and then raped, the judges themselves observed the severity of necrophilia but still chose not to punish the accused for the same, stating that in order for rape to occur, a person must be alive.

Meaning And Origin

Necrophilia is a term not all of us are aware of. Rudimentarily, it can be defined as the fantasy of sexual intercourse with a corpse, which depicts a rare form of paraphilia.[iii]

Derived from the Greek words “philos” (love) and “nekros” (dead body), the term “necrophilia” means to have sexual attraction to and/or desire to engage in sexual acts with corpses. Due to the inability of the victim and lack of awareness in society to report such acts, it remains challenging to determine the honest statistics of necrophilia.

The term necrophilia was first coined by Belgian psychiatrist Joseph Guislain around 1850. It has been centuries since the crime has been identified, but the punishment is not yet recognized under Indian criminal law. The first reported case of necrophilia was in Bangladesh, where a 20-year-old morgue assistant raped several female dead bodies in the morgue. It was later, through his sperm found on the female bodies, that he was caught for his act.[iv]

Necrophilia And Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

Indian courts in their various previous judgments have consistently upheld that necrophilia, though a horrendous crime, cannot be punished under the category of rape, as for rape to be committed, both the victim and the accused shall be alive.

Rape as per Section 63 of the BNS —
“A man is said to commit ‘rape’ if he:

• penetrates his penis…; or
• inserts…; or
• manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina; or
• applies his mouth to the vagina…”[v]

From the above section, it can be inferred that, in order to meet the requirements under this section, the woman must be alive. Therefore, women who are dead cannot be raped, or their rape cannot be recognized, merely because it is difficult to determine whether they have been raped after their death, as they cannot express it.

Any Other Section That Can Be Applicable

As per Section 501[vi] of the BNS:
“Whoever commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sepulchre, or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites or as a depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be punished…”

From this, one can infer that if a person trespasses at burial grounds and offers indignity to human corpses, they shall be punished. Since rape is considered an indignity to a female corpse, a person committing rape on a female dead body can be held liable under Section 501. However, the accused would be punished with imprisonment for a term of one year, with or without fine.

Does The Punishment Justify The Crime?

No, the punishment does not justify the crime, as rape under the BNS is punished with 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with fine, which is non-bailable, whereas a person who is accused of raping a female dead body would be punished for one year with or without fine[vii] — that too bailable. So it means that if a person commits rape on a living woman, he would be punished with a non-bailable offence, and if the very same crime is committed on a non-living woman, it becomes a bailable offence. The question arises — is this justified?

The Irony at play

The biggest paradox of necrophilia is that although courts have consistently recognized necrophilia as a gruesome and punishable crime, they have failed to establish clear liability for the same. In the case of Surendra Koli vs. State[viii], the Allahabad High Court highlighted necrophilia as a disease. Various High Courts in their judgments have consistently emphasized the seriousness of necrophilia, yet there still remains an absence of specific liability for this offence.

The question is: can the judiciary take no action in the absence of legislation? The Supreme Court, in Vishaka and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.[ix], reaffirmed that the judiciary can make a legislation if it is the need of society and further laid down guidelines for the protection of women in the workplace against sexual harassment until there was legislation. So why can’t it do the same in the case of necrophilia?

The fact that courts recognize necrophilia and the severity of the offence can be inferred — then why is the legislature still silent about it?

For instance, for acid attacks, there was never a separate provision in the Indian Penal Code until 2013, when through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, it was added under Section 326(A)[x] of the IPC. The first data available after the amendment, in the year 2014, put the number of cases reported at 349 from all over India.[xi] This is almost 300 percent more than the average number of such cases witnessed during the preceding three years. The years 2011, 2012, and 2013 witnessed 83, 85, and 66 cases being reported respectively, but this number shot up to 309 in 2014[xii], which is nearly four times the reported average number of acid attack cases from the preceding years. Legislation was brought when the cases increased.

The International Scenario

In the United States of America[xiii], laws concerning necrophilia are determined at the state level. Many states have explicitly criminalized necrophilia, such as Washington, where necrophilia is classified as an offence under the Revised Code of Washington, Chapter 9A Section 44.105.[xiv] Even in Nevada, necrophilia is explicitly criminalized under Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 201 Section 450.[xv] The wording in these laws may vary, but they generally prohibit sexual conduct with human remains.

In Australia, necrophilia has been criminalized in every state, each having its own law. For example, in New South Wales, Section 81C of the Crimes Act 1900 deals with misconduct involving corpses.[xvi]

In the United Kingdom as well, though necrophilia has not been explicitly recognized, they have laws regarding sexual penetration of a dead person’s body.[xvii]

In fact, recently, Pakistan in 2024 criminalized necrophilia under its Senate Commission meeting with life imprisonment.[xviii]

This Has Been Summarized In The Table Below:

Therefore, given that numerous nations have criminalized necrophilia in recent times, the severity of this offence is evident. This assertion gains further credence from the need for the Indian government to enact legislation in this regard.

Can the Constitution be a Saviour?

It has been consistently held by Indian courts that international standards shall be taken into consideration if fundamental rights are at stake. It was reaffirmed in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra[xxiv], which observed that if there is no inconsistency, the principles of international law must be taken into consideration when fundamental rights are at stake.

In the case of necrophilia, as held in Common Cause v. Union of India[xxv], the right to die with dignity lies under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution[xxvi]. Therefore, since necrophilia disturbs that right and the dignity of the dead, courts should declare necrophilia as a violation of Article 21 and deal with it through strict laws. As the dead cannot claim their rights, the judiciary has the duty to protect them. Since they cannot speak for themselves, the judiciary should become their voice and decrease or better eliminate crimes against dead females with stricter norms and punishments.

Therefore, since necrophilia has been recognized as a crime at the international level, Indian jurisprudence and precedents must also take this recognition into account while adjudicating cases of necrophilia. Such acts not only violate the dignity of the deceased but also offend the collective conscience of society. None of us would want the corpses of our families, friends, or even enemies to be subjected to such indignity. In this case, the cry is not audible, but rises from Underneath.

Way Forward

As per Dr. Anil Kapoor, who is a forensic pathologist, to prevent necrophilia there shall be stringent protocols in hospitals, morgues, and cemeteries. Access to corpses must be carefully monitored, and staff shall be trained to report any suspicious behaviour.[xxvii]

Indian legislation should amend the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 63[xxviii], and include necrophilia as a separate offence or create a separate section or criminal act penalizing and criminalizing necrophilia as a non-bailable offence with stringent punishments. As presently, the punishment for necrophilia does not justify the crime, the principle of proportionate punishment or proportionate justice stands null.

Also, public awareness should be a crucial part, as Indian society is not well-versed with necrophilia. Therefore, awareness programmes around urban and rural regions are crucial to increase awareness about necrophilia as an existing offence. Until Indian legislation makes a law regarding necrophilia, people should stay cautious while burying the dead.

Furthermore, the installation of CCTV cameras around morgues and graveyards can be an effective and efficient step to identify the criminals.

Conclusion

Necrophilia is not a crime in isolation or a crime that could only happen to certain “types” of people. Anyone who is buried can be a victim of this, as no one is asking for it — that’s outrightly a crime. The Constitution of India supports that “a thousand culprits can be set free, but not one innocent should be punished.”[xxix] Then why is the Constitution silent when numerous innocent dead bodies are constantly punished for something they have no role in?

Moving forward, Indian legislation should, in the near future, fix this loophole, as this hole is not in a forest but in a crowded city where thousands of people pass by daily, and many of them have been victims of this loophole. There should be stringent laws and new legislation criminalizing the act of necrophilia, not only because it is a legal need but also to make India a safer place to bury our loved ones.

Lastly, no member of society would ever endorse the disrespect of the dead; such an act violates both ethical and human dignity. It is not only the dignity of the deceased that is at stake but that of the complete society. Death does not strip a person of their right to dignity. The inability of the dead to voice their suffering does not give rights to abusers to justify their crimes. Allowing offenders to escape punishment merely because the victim cannot ask for justice is a failure of justice in the Indian justice system.

As the saying goes, “Death Ends Life, Not Dignity.”

[i] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 63

[ii]  Neelkanth v State of Chhattisgarh, MANU/CG/1849/2024 

[iii]  Ankit Halder and Navna Panchami Ravindran, ‘Necrophilia: A Diagnosis or a Symptom’ (2025) Annals of Indian Psychiatry https://journals.lww.com/aips/fulltext/9900/necrophilia__a_diagnosis_or_a_symptom.79.aspx accessed 7 September 2025 

[iv]  Md. Rabiul Islam, MMA Shalahuddin Qusar and Md. Saiful Islam, ‘The first necrophilia incident in a morgue of Bangladesh: Evidence from media reports’ (2021) Current Research in Behavioral Sciences 2 (3) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crbeha.2021.100020 accessed 7 September 2025

[v] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 63

[vi] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 501

[vii] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 64

[viii] Surendra Koli vs. State,  MANU/UP/3342/2023

[ix] Vishaka and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,  MANU/SC/0786/1997

[x]  The Indian Penal Code 1860, s 326A (as inserted by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013)

[xi] Acid Survivors Foundation India, http://www.asfi.in/webpage.php?title=Statistics+&p_type=1&parent=76&catid=78 (last accessed 27.09.2025)

[xii]  Utkarsh Anand,‘309 acid attack cases in ’14, 300% rise in 3 yrs’ Indian Express (10 April 2015) https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/309-acid-attack-cases-in-14-300-rise-in-3-yrs/ (last accessed 27.09.2025)

[xiii]  Troyer J, ‘Abuse of a Corpse: A Brief History and Re-theorization of Necrophilia Laws in the USA’ (2008) 13(2) Mortality https://doi.org/10.1080/13576270801954518 accessed 8 October 2025

[xiv]  Revised Code of Washington, 9A.44.105

[xv]  Nevada Revised Statutes, § 201.450

[xvi]  Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 81C

[xvii]  H Sayyed and J Singh, ‘From silence to sanction: comparative analysis of necrophilia laws in India and other countries’ (2024) 10(1) Cogent Social Sciences https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2433700  [last accessed 7 September 2025]

[xviii]  Nadir Guramani, ‘Pakistan lawmakers criminalise necrophilia in Senate committee meeting’ Asia News Network (12 September 2024) https://asianews.network/pakistan-lawmakers-criminalise-necrophilia-in-senate-committee-meeting [last accessed 27.09.2025]

[xix]  Revised Code of Washington, 9A.44.105

[xx]  Nevada Revised Statutes, § 201.450

[xxi]  Sexual Offences Act 2003, s 70

[xxii]  Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 81C

[xxiii]  Senate of Pakistan, Committee Report on the Criminal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024 (Protection of Human Dead Bodies) (2024) http://senate.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1718263483_311.pdf

 accessed 9 October 2025

[xxiv]  Apparel Export Promotion Council v AK Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759

[xxv]  Common Cause v Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1

[xxvi]  Constitution of India, art 21

[xxvii]  Forensic protocols in hospitals and morgues: Aggrawal, A., Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes, CRC Press, 2009

[xxviii]  Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, s 63

[xxix]  SCC Online, ‘Madras HC: “1000 Culprits Can Escape, but One Innocent Person Should Not Be Punished”, HC States in Perfunctory Investigation of a Brutal Murder’ (SCC Blog, 9 September 2020) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/09/09/madras-hc-1000-culprits-can-escape-but-one-innocent-person-should-not-be-punished-hc-states-in-perfunctory-investigation-of-a-brutal-murder/ accessed 9 October 2025