Sex with a female dead body attract 376 ipc or not ?
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
Sex with a female dead body attract 376 IPC or not ?
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 10 November 2011
yuck, Necrophilia should attract even more stringent things.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Rajeev Kumar
(Expert) 10 November 2011
Yes i too do agree with the view of Mr.Kapoor
ajay sethi
(Expert) 10 November 2011
It is not rape but an unnatural offence falling under Sec.377 of IPC
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 November 2011
Rape can be committed upon living lady only
as consent is the pin point in rapes which a dead body can not give.
So may be 377 as Mr.Sethi says or no offence at all though too heinous and in human it looks.
Arvind Sehdev
(Expert) 10 November 2011
Guys i dont think 377 is attracted here but Section 297 is.
Section 297 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) states as follows:
Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sculpture, or any place set apart from 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 with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Although Necrophilia is not explicitly stated in IPC, a necrophiliac may be convicted under the above section in the Indian Penal Code. There have been several allegations by relatives of dead women, that the dead bodies of their kin were defiled in the night by mortuary attendants, but none have been proven.
In some cases, where a woman was alleged to have been raped and murdered and the autopsy surgeon failed to find any signs of rape, the relatives have approached the authorities for a second postmortem. The second postmortem is invariably conducted at a different hospital, often necessitating the deposit of the body overnight at the mortuary of the second hospital. In cases where the second autopsy surgeon finds signs of rape, the defendants have been known to allege that the dead body was defiled by drunk mortuary attendants at night. However, no such allegation has been proven in a court of law.
Arvind Sehdev
(Expert) 10 November 2011
Please read the line in brackets...
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 10 November 2011
[[[[[[[or offers any indignity to any human corpse]]]]]]], Section 297 IPC
YES SMART Arvind Sehdev HAS A RIGHT ANSWER IN MY VIEW.
AND MR.SETHI IS REQUESTED TO RE LOOK THE MATTER.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 10 November 2011
377. Unnatural offences —
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any
man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
having sex with a dead corpse would be against the order of nature . it would be an unatural office . hence opined that it would fall under section 377
Arvind Sehdev
(Expert) 10 November 2011
Mr. Sethi please understand Carnal Intercourse it is not with a dead person as such..
You can look for it here: http://charleshector.blogspot.com/2008/08/some-carnal-intercourse-against-order.html
377A. Carnal intercourse against the order of nature.
Any person who has sexual connection with another person by the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person is said to commit carnal intercourse against the order of nature.
So the above topic can never come under 377. Even if some dumb cop puts it there the section can easily be quashed.
Advocate Rajiv Mishra
(Expert) 11 November 2011
[[[[[[[or offers any indignity to any human corpse]]]]]]],Well said Mr.Sehdev.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 11 November 2011
Hmmmmmmm, interesting discussion.
Need some more pondering over the same.
