Show summary Hide summary
A Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside an FIR against an Amravati woman after finding no criminal liability in her refusal to accept her deceased mother’s body while seeking an inquiry. The ruling narrows the circumstances in which relatives’ conduct around a corpse can be treated as an offence under the new penal code.
The case, heard by Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, concerned an FIR lodged at Gadge Nagar police station after the woman’s mother was found dead at home on October 13, 2025. The daughter — identified in court papers as Vijaya Ukarde — told police she would not take custody of the body until questions around the death were answered; authorities then registered an offence alleging humiliation of the dead.
Why the court threw out the FIR
Counsel for the petitioner, Shilpa Giratkar, argued that the provision of the new penal code relied upon applies only where there is a deliberate purpose to offend religious feelings or to treat a corpse with public outrage. The state, represented by KR Lule, maintained that the refusal itself amounted to indignity and merited prosecution.
Sara Khan slams religious trolls after backlash over interfaith marriage
British cyclist viral moment: chilled buttermilk from stranger highlights India’s warm hospitality
After reviewing the FIR and the available material, the bench concluded there was no evidence of the specific mental element the statute requires. In plain terms: the record showed a refusal to take the body, not actions aimed at insulting religion, disturbing funeral rites, or provoking public sentiment.
- Section 301 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 requires proof of intent to wound feelings, insult religion, or commit acts affecting funerary practices.
- The court found no allegations of trespass into burial sites or interference with rituals.
- There was no material showing a deliberate attempt to cause public outrage or to demean the deceased.
- The bench said the prosecution had not established even a prima facie case under the provision invoked.
“The only recorded claim is that the daughter declined possession of her mother’s body,” the court observed, noting an absence of any factual basis for treating the conduct as criminal under the cited section.
Practical implications
The judgment underscores a tighter threshold for bringing criminal charges when family members take controversial steps during a death investigation. It signals that mere refusal to accept a body — particularly while seeking official clarification about the cause of death — is not automatically criminal conduct.
This has immediate consequences for how police and prosecutors evaluate similar complaints across the state. Charging decisions that hinge on ambiguous family disputes or expressions of grief may now face closer judicial scrutiny.
Legal experts say the ruling could shape lower-court approaches to cases where emotions run high and criminal law intersects with private family decisions.
What to watch next
Lower courts and investigative agencies will likely look to this judgment for guidance on applying the new code’s public‑order and religious‑sentiment provisions. The decision does not prevent civil remedies or administrative follow-up where disputes over custody of remains arise, but it raises the bar for criminal prosecution.
The Nagpur bench’s order offers an early interpretation of the BNS and highlights the judiciary’s caution in converting family grief into penal action without clear evidence of intent to offend.
