1). Supreme Court Refuses to Label Necrophilia as 'Rape' Under Indian Penal Code/Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

Case Background

The case involves a man accused of murdering a 21-year-old woman and then having sexual intercourse with her dead body. Initially, the trial court convicted him of both murder and rape (under Section 376 IPC). However, the Karnataka High Court later acquitted him of the rape charge, ruling that having sex with a dead body does not amount to rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The State Government of Karnataka challenged this decision before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP).

Issues in the Case

• Whether sexual intercourse with a dead body qualifies as rape under Section 375 IPC?
• Whether the definition of "body" under Section 375(c) should include a dead body?
• Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the Karnataka High Court's partial acquittal of the accused?

Supreme Court's Observations

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah considered the arguments of the Additional Advocate General of Karnataka, Aman Panwar. The State Government argued that:

1. A dead body should be included within the definition of “body” under Section 375(c) IPC/Section 63(c) of BNS.
2. Since a dead body cannot communicate consent, sexual intercourse with it should be treated as rape, similar to cases where a woman is unconscious or otherwise unable to consent (7th description of rape under Section 375 IPC).

However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the challenge and ruled that Necrophilia (sexual intercourse with a dead body) is not an offense under IPC, and therefore, the Court could not interfere in the High Court’s decision.

Karnataka High Court’s Ruling & Recommendations

A division bench of the Karnataka High Court, comprising Justice B Veerappa and Justice Venkatesh Naik T, held that:

• A dead body is not a "human" or "person" under IPC.
• Since Sections 375 and 377 IPC apply only to living persons, these provisions cannot be used to punish sexual acts on a dead body.
• Therefore, the accused cannot be punished for rape under Section 376 IPC.

However, while acquitting the accused of rape, the High Court acknowledged the seriousness of the crime and recommended that the Parliament introduce a law criminalizing Necrophilia.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 375 IPC (Definition of Rape): It applies only to a living woman and does not mention dead bodies. (Section 63 of BNS)
• Section 377 IPC (Unnatural Offences): Covers unnatural sexual acts but does not explicitly include sexual acts on a dead body. (Omitted in BNS)
• Section 376 IPC/Section 64 of BNS

Significance of the Case

• Highlights a Legal Gap: India currently does not have any specific law criminalizing necrophilia.
• Need for Legislative Reform: The High Court suggested that India should follow countries like the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, which have specific laws against necrophilia.
• Dignity of the Dead: The case emphasizes the need to protect the dignity of dead bodies, particularly women's bodies, in hospitals and mortuaries.

The Supreme Court upheld the Karnataka High Court’s ruling, stating that necrophilia is not a punishable offense under IPC. However, the case highlights a serious legal loophole, and the High Court has strongly recommended that the Parliament introduce specific laws criminalizing necrophilia to protect the dignity of the dead.

Case Name : THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. RANGARAJU @ VAJAPEYI| SLP(Crl) No. 005403 - / 2024

2). MP High Court: Son-In-Law Must Leave Father-In-Law’s House If Needed for Senior’s Welfare 

Case Background

The case involves a retired senior citizen (father-in-law) who sought the eviction of his son-in-law from his property. The son-in-law was living in the house as a permissive occupant after the death of his wife (the senior citizen’s daughter). The father-in-law needed the property to generate additional income for supporting his sick wife and other children.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) and Collector had ordered the eviction of the son-in-law. The Single Judge of the High Court upheld this order. The son-in-law then appealed against the decision, claiming that he had rights over the property.

Issues in the Case

• Whether a son-in-law can be considered a "child" under Section 2(a) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007?
• Whether the son-in-law had any legal rights to stay in the property?
• Whether Section 23 of the Act, 2007, which allows for reclaiming transferred property, applied in this case?

Court’s Observations

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain made the following key observations:

1. The son-in-law was living in the house only as a permissive occupant and had no legal rights over the property.
2. The father-in-law (Respondent No. 3) had a genuine need for the house to secure a stable income.
3. The claim by the son-in-law that he had adverse possession or had contributed to the house construction was not supported by any legal proof.
4. Section 23 of the Act, 2007, which allows senior citizens to reclaim property transferred under undue influence or coercion, was not applicable because there was no formal transfer of ownership.
5. The definition of "Children" under Section 2(a) of the Act is not comprehensive, but by implication, since the property was given to the daughter, the son-in-law’s responsibilities towards the senior citizen should also be considered.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The High Court upheld the eviction order, stating that the father-in-law has the right to reclaim and use his own property for his well-being.
• The son-in-law must vacate the premises within 30 days.
• If he fails to vacate, the SHO (Station House Officer) will remove his belongings and hand over the house to the father-in-law.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 2(a) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007: Defines "children" as sons, daughters, grandsons, and granddaughters (not minors).
• Section 23 of the Act, 2007: Allows a senior citizen to reclaim property transferred under coercion, undue influence, or when the transferee fails to maintain them.

Significance of the Case

• Reinforces Property Rights of Senior Citizens: Senior citizens can reclaim their property from unauthorized occupants, even if they are relatives.
• Legal Recognition of Needs of Senior Citizens: Courts recognize the right of elderly individuals to use their property for financial security and peaceful living.
• Clarifies the Scope of the Act: While sons-in-law are not explicitly mentioned in the Act, the ruling suggests that their responsibilities towards senior citizens can be considered in specific situations.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that the son-in-law had no legal right to continue living in the father-in-law’s house and must vacate it. This decision strengthens the rights of senior citizens to reclaim and use their property for their well-being and serves as a warning against unauthorized occupation by relatives.

Case Name: Dilip Marmat Versus Collector And Others, Writ Appeal No. 1705 of 2023

3). Delhi High Court: Giving Grounds of Arrest Just Before Remand Violates Section 50 CrPC 

Case Background

The case involves Marfing Tamang, who was arrested by the Delhi Police in connection with a case under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The police alleged that Tamang was the manager of an establishment engaged in sexual abuse and exploitation and was benefiting from such activities.

After his arrest, Tamang was first remanded to police custody for two days and then sent to judicial custody for 14 days. He challenged his arrest and remand, arguing that:

• The grounds for his arrest were not communicated to him at the time of arrest, violating Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
• The grounds of arrest mentioned in the remand application before the Magistrate were different from those later given to him.
• Since the due process was not followed, both his arrest and remand were illegal.

Issues in the Case

• Whether furnishing the grounds of arrest just before the remand hearing is sufficient compliance with Section 50 of CrPC?
• Whether Tamang’s arrest and remand violated his fundamental rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India?

Court’s Observations

The case was heard by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the Delhi High Court, who made the following key observations:

1. Grounds of Arrest Must Be Given Immediately ("Forthwith")
   • Section 50 of CrPC states that the grounds of arrest must be communicated "forthwith" when a person is arrested.
   • The Court held that this means the arrestee must be informed immediately at the time of arrest, not just before the remand hearing.
2. Right to Legal Counsel
   • The arrestee must have sufficient time to consult a lawyer before the remand hearing.
   • Providing the grounds of arrest just an hour before the remand hearing does not give the person a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention.
3. Violation of Fundamental Rights
   • Article 22(1) of the Constitution guarantees that a person cannot be arrested without being informed of the reason for the arrest.
   • If the grounds for arrest are delayed, the person's right to challenge the arrest is violated.
4. Investigation Officer’s Duty
   • The Court held that once an Investigating Officer (IO) decides to arrest someone, there is no valid reasonwhy the grounds of arrest cannot be provided in writing at the same time.
   • Any delay in giving the grounds of arrest weakens the legal protections of the accused.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The Delhi High Court set aside Tamang’s remand order as well as his arrest, ruling that they violated Section 50 of CrPC and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
• The Court ordered his immediate release from judicial custody.
• However, the Court directed that Tamang must continue to participate in the legal proceedings related to the FIR.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Requires that the person being arrested must be informed of the grounds of arrest immediately ("forthwith"). (Section 47 of BNSS)
• Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India: Protects individuals from being detained without being informed of the reasons for their arrest and gives them the right to consult a lawyer.

Significance of the Case

• Strengthens Rights of Arrestees: The ruling reinforces that the grounds of arrest must be provided immediately, ensuring that people can exercise their right to legal counsel.
• Prevents Abuse of Police Powers: The decision prevents law enforcement agencies from delaying the disclosure of arrest reasons, which can otherwise weaken a person’s ability to challenge an unlawful arrest.
• Ensures Fair Remand Hearings: The ruling emphasizes that for a remand hearing to be fair, the accused must have a reasonable opportunity to prepare a legal defense.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Marfing Tamang, setting aside his remand and arrest due to non-compliance with Section 50 of CrPC and violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The decision is significant in protecting individual rights against unlawful detention and ensuring proper legal procedures are followed during arrests.

Case Name: MARFING TAMANG @ MAAINA TAMANG v. STATE

4). Inconsistent Victim Testimony Not Enough for Conviction in Sexual Offence Cases: J&K High Court 

Case Background

This case involved two accused, Abdul Gani Akhnoor and Noor Mohd. Bhat, who were convicted by the trial courtfor the offences of rape, abduction, and wrongful confinement based on the statement of the victim (prosecutrix). The prosecutrix alleged that:

• She was abducted by the accused and raped at an undisclosed location.
• During the investigation, she did not identify the place where she was kept, despite claiming to have been aware of it.
• She also stated in her FIR that she had suffered injuries, but the medical report found no marks of violence on her body.

The accused challenged their conviction before the High Court, arguing that:

• The prosecutrix’s statements were inconsistent and full of contradictions.
• There was no independent evidence apart from the prosecutrix’s statement.
• The trial court wrongly convicted them without cogent proof.

The prosecution, however, contended that:

• The trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence.
• The victim’s testimony alone was sufficient to convict the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues in the Case

• Whether the statement of the prosecutrix was reliable enough to convict the accused?
• Whether the prosecution’s evidence was strong and consistent?
• Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused despite contradictions in the victim’s statement?

Court’s Observations

The case was heard by a single-judge bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court. The Court made the following observations:

1. Inconsistencies in the Prosecutrix’s Statement

• The prosecutrix claimed she was blindfolded when taken to the place of the crime. However, during cross-examination, she admitted knowing the place, but never identified it during the investigation.
• This contradiction weakened the prosecution’s case, as a victim’s testimony must be consistent from the beginning to the end.

2. Lack of Medical and Corroborative Evidence

• In her FIR, the prosecutrix stated that she suffered injuries during the crime.
• However, the medical report showed no injuries or marks of violence on her body.
• There was no other evidence apart from her statement to prove the charges of abduction and rape.

3. Legal Principle of "Sterling Witness"

• The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012), which stated that:
  • A victim’s statement in sexual offence cases should be of "sterling quality" (completely reliable).
  • The witness must be consistent and withstand cross-examination without creating doubt about the occurrence of the crime.
  • The version of events must match other supporting material, such as forensic evidence, medical reports, and witness testimonies.
• In this case, the prosecutrix’s statements had major inconsistencies, making it unsafe to convict the accused based on her sole testimony.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The High Court set aside the conviction passed by the trial court.
• It held that the evidence was not strong enough to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The accused were acquitted as their conviction was not sustainable in law.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 376 of IPC – Punishment for rape. (Section 64 of BNS)
• Section 366 of IPC – Punishment for abduction to compel a woman into marriage or illicit intercourse. (Section 87 of BNS)
• Principle of "Sterling Witness" – A sole witness’s testimony in sexual offences must be free of contradictions and reliable beyond doubt.

Significance of the Case

• Reinforces the Need for Strong and Consistent Evidence: Courts cannot convict accused persons solely on the basis of contradictory statements.
• Clarifies the Legal Standard for Sexual Offence Cases: A victim’s testimony must be reliable and consistent to secure a conviction.
• Prevents Misuse of Criminal Laws: Ensures that innocent persons are not convicted based on weak or unreliable evidence.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the evidence presented in this case was not strong enough to convict the accused. Due to inconsistencies in the prosecutrix’s statements and lack of medical or corroborative proof, the conviction by the trial court was set aside, and the accused were acquitted. This case highlights the importance of strong, consistent, and credible evidence in sexual offence cases to ensure justice for both victims and the accused.

Case Name: Abdul Gani Akhnoor vs State of J&K, 2025

5). Prima Facie Grave Provocation: Bombay HC Grants Bail to Youth in Father’s Murder Case

Case Background

The case involves Tejas Shinde, a 22-year-old student, who was accused of killing his 69-year-old bedridden father. The incident occurred on February 22, 2023, when Tejas, who was 20 years old at the time, was studying for his Bachelor of Management Studies (BMS) degree in Dombivli (near Thane).

Tejas lived with his mother, a housemaid, and his father, who was bedridden due to a kidney ailment. According to the prosecution, on the day of the incident:

• Tejas came home from college and helped his father with urination and cleaning, as his father had soiled the bed.
• When his father asked for medicine with water, Tejas objected, fearing the medicine was not prescribed by doctors and could be harmful.
• This led to a heated argument, and the father began verbally abusing Tejas and his mother.
• In a fit of anger, Tejas first hit his father with a millstone (used for grinding) and later stabbed him in the neck with a kitchen knife.
• After the incident, Tejas closed the house, took ₹100 from a neighbor, and voluntarily went to the nearest police station to confess.

Tejas was arrested and charged with murder. However, he later filed a bail application, arguing that his actions were a result of grave provocation and that he should be given an opportunity to continue his education and reform himself.

Issues in the Case

• Whether Tejas Shinde’s act was a result of grave provocation?
• Whether his young age and educational background should be considered while granting bail?
• Whether he posed a threat to society if released on bail?

Court’s Observations

The case was heard by Justice Milind Jadhav of the Bombay High Court, who made the following key observations:

1. Grave Provocation and Mental Stress

• The Court observed that Tejas was "provoked" by his bedridden father, who constantly abused him and his mother.
• As a 20-year-old student, Tejas had an adolescent mind that could not handle the mental stress of repeated verbal abuse.
• This provocation led to the tragic act, and it was necessary to consider the emotional and psychological impact on the accused.

2. Education and Future of the Accused

• The Court noted that Tejas was a student in a reputed college, and his education should not be disrupted.
• Justice Jadhav emphasized that young offenders should be given a chance to reform and contribute positively to society.

3. Voluntary Surrender and No Criminal Intent

• The Court considered Tejas's conduct after the crime. Instead of running away, he confessed his actions at the police station.
• This indicated that Tejas was not a habitual criminal and felt remorse for his actions.

4. Impact of Long-Term Imprisonment on Young Offenders

• The Court observed that keeping a young offender in prison for long periods could have harmful consequences.
• The purpose of punishment is not just to penalize but also to reform, and Tejas should be given a chance to prove he has changed.

Court Rulings and Decision

• The Bombay High Court granted bail to Tejas Shinde on a surety of ₹25,000.
• The Court held that Tejas's age, educational background, and provocation by his father justified granting him bail.
• The Court made it clear that Tejas must continue his education and demonstrate reformed conduct.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Deals with punishment for murder. (Section 103(1) of BNS)
• Exceptions 1 of Section 300 of IPC deals with Grave and Sudden Provocation. (Exception 1 of Section 101 of BNS)
• Bail under Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Courts can grant bail if the accused does not pose a threat to society and has valid reasons for release. (Section 480 of BNSS)

Significance of the Case

• Recognizes Grave Provocation as a Factor in Bail Decisions: The ruling highlights how provocation can influence an individual’s mental state, especially in cases of domestic violence or emotional abuse.
• Emphasizes Reform and Rehabilitation: Instead of punitive justice, the judgment focuses on giving young offenders a second chance.
• Sets a Precedent for Similar Cases: This case can influence future decisions regarding bail for young offenders who act under extreme provocation.

The Bombay High Court granted bail to Tejas Shinde, recognizing that his actions were triggered by extreme verbal abuse from his father. The Court emphasized that his young age, educational background, and voluntary confessionshowed that he deserved a chance to reform and reintegrate into society. This ruling underscores the importance of understanding psychological factors in criminal cases and ensuring that justice includes opportunities for rehabilitation.

Case Name: Tejas Shinde vs State of Maharashtra (Bail Application 544 of 2024)