Abstract

Necrophilia, the sexual attraction, obsession, or engagement with deceased human bodies, remains a profoundly unsettling and morally contentious subject in human history. Despite its disturbing nature, various religious texts emphasize the importance of treating the deceased with utmost reverence, acknowledging their spiritual journey beyond mortality. In this context, Hinduism views the dead body as more than just mortal remains, representing the departure of the soul on its spiritual journey housed temporarily in the “atman,” an eternal connection to divine cosmic energy. Christianity, on the other hand, emphasizes the resurrection of the body, highlighting the sanctity of the deceased and the divine restoration of life after death. Islam strictly condemns necrophilia as a desecration of the body and a violation of religious principles. Recently, the Karnataka High Court's ruling in the case of Rangaraju @ Vajapeyi and State of Karnataka ignited significant controversy when it acquitted the defendant on charges of raping a deceased victim due to the lack of specific provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This article critically analyzes the High Court's judgment, arguing that a purposive interpretation of Sections 375/377 of the IPC, aimed at protecting the dignity and rights of individuals, would have been more appropriate. Such an approach would extend the protection of these provisions to include deceased individuals, aligning the law with its moral and just intent and fostering a more compassionate and humane legal system.

Keywords