'Rape' On A Dead Body 'Horrendous' Act But It Doesn't Amount To An Offence Of Rape: Chhattisgarh High Court

A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed that for the commission of an offence of rape, the victim should be alive.

The bench ruled thus while dismissing an appeal (against the acquittal of an accused-Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh) filed by the mother of a 9-year-old girl who was raped, murdered, and whose dead body was again raped before the same was buried.

The Court, however, dismissed the appeal filed by another accused (Nitin Yadav), who committed rape against her (before murdering her) and thus, was convicted by the trial Court under Sections 376(3), 363, 302, 201 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant-Nitin Yadav, in October 2018, committed rape upon the victim, who was a minor aged about 9 years and belonging to a scheduled caste category, in her own house and thereafter committed her murder by throttling.

Thereafter, the dead body was taken to a hill with the assistance of co-accused Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh and in order to screen the evidence, the dead body was buried in the ground, and before burial, the co-accused Neelkanth committed rape upon the dead body of the victim.

Challenging his conviction, accused Yadav moved the HC, where the mother of the victim also moved against the acquittal of Accused-Neelkanth for offences under 376(3), 363, 302, 201 IPC, Section 6 POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In its analysis of the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial court, the HC concluded that the appellants were the authors of the crime in question, with accused Neelkanth helping the main accused (Yadav) by Causing the disappearance of evidence of the offence or giving false information to screen the offender.

The Court noted that it was proven that Accused Yadav throttled the victim's neck, because of which she died, and thereafter, he carried the dead body along with the undergarments and slippers of the victim to his house and hid the body inside the house.

The Court further noted that thereafter, he met co-accused Neelkanth and informed him about the incident and also asked him for help to cause the disappearance of the body, and that is how they both took the dead body to a hill where accused-Neelkanth raped the dead body of the victim, before burying the same.

“We concur with the reasoning and findings arrived at by the learned trial Court in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences in question, and as such, both the criminal appeals stand dismissed,” the Court noted in its order.

However, refusing to convict the co-accused for the offence of rape, the Court underscored thus:

“There can be no disagreement on the issue that dignity and fair treatment is not only available to a living man but also to his dead body and every dead body is entitled for a respectful treatment but the law as on date has to be applied to the facts of the case and none of the offences as prayed by the learned counsel for the objector can be imposed upon the appellant-Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh.”

With this, the Court directed appellant Nitin Yadav to serve the remaining part of the sentence. Furthermore, the Court directed the co-accused, who was granted bail in Feb 2024, to surrender and serve the remaining part of the sentence for the offence under Section 201 IPC.

Case title - Neelkanth @ Neelu Nagesh vs State of Chhattisgarh and connected matters

Case citation:

Click Here ToRead/Download Order