RAFIQ versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 402 · Decided: 14-08-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
:i02 
RAFIQ 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
August 14, 1980 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950 Art. 136--Concurrent findings oi fact-Appeal 
by special leave against conviction for rape by Lower Courts-Supreme Court 
when would interfere. 
Indian Penal Code 1860, s. 376-Evidence and proof-Absence 01 m111rie$ 
on prosecutrix-Whether fatal to the prosecution-Testimony of prosecutri:X-
Corroboration whether necessary. 
The petitioner was convicted on the charge of committing rape on a middl• 
aged Bal Sewika in a village welfare organisation who was sleeping in a girls 
school. 
The trial Court imposed a sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. 
The High Court, confirmed the conviction and sentence. 
In the Special Leavi: Petition to this Court it was contended on behalf 
of the petitioner relying on the decision of this Court in Pratap Mishra & Ors. 
vs. State of Orissa, A.l.R. 1977 S.C. 1307 that absence of injuries on the person 
of the victim was fatal to the prosecution and that corroborating evidence was 
an imperative component of judicial credence in rape cases. 
lt wa~ also 
submitted that the sentence of 7 years was too severe. 
Dismissing the petition; 
HELD: 1. No interference on the score of culpability or quantum of 
punishment is cai!ed for. [405 Gl 
2. Concurrent findings of fact ordinarily acquire a deterrent sanctity and 
tentative finality when challenged in this Court. 
The special jurisdiction under 
Article 136 of the Constitution which is meant mainly to correct manifest injustics 
or errors of law of great moment cannot be invoked in the instant 
case. [ 403 HJ 
3.(i) The facts and circumstances often vary from case to case, the crime 
situation and the myriad psychic factors, social .conditions and people's life-styles 
may fluctuate, and so, rules of prudence relevant in one fact-situation may be 
inept in another. 
The argument that rej?ardless of the specific circumstances 
of a crime and criminal milieu, some strands of probative reasoning which 
appealed to a Bench in one reported decision must mechanically be extended 
to other cases cannot be accepted. [404 D] 
(ii) Pratap Misra's case laid down no inflexible axiom of law on either 
point. [ 404 C] 
4. Corroboration as a condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of 
a prosecutrix is not a matter of Jaw, but a guidance of prudence under giveD> 
circumstances. [404 E] 
RAFIQ v. u. P. STATE (Krishna Iyer, J.) 
403 
In the instant case the testimony of the nrosecutrix has commanded 
A 
acceptance from two courts. 
A sensitized judge who sees the conspectus of 
circumstances in its totality hardly rejects the testimony of a rape victim unless 
there are very strong circumstances militating against its veracity. 
There is 
none in this case. 
The confirmation of the conviction by the Courts below 
must therefore, be a matter of course. [ 404 H, 405 Bl 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: Special 
Leave 
Petition 
B 
(Criminal) No. 950 of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-1979 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Cr!. A. No. 2305/7fl,. 
U. S. Prasad for the Petitioner. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, 
KRISHNA IYER, J.-This special Leave Petition relates to a 
conviction and sentence for an offence of rape. 
The escalation of such 
crimes has reached proportions to. a degree that exposes the pretensions 
of the nation's spiritual leadership and celluloid censorship, puts to 
c 
shame our ancient cultural heritage and humane claims and betrays 
D 
a vulgar masculine outrage on human rights of which woman's personal 
dignity is a sacred component. 
We refuse special leave and briefly 
state a few reasons for doing so. 
Draupadi, a middle-aged Bal Sewika in a village welfare 
organization, was sleeping in a girls' school where she was allegedly 
E 
raped by Rafiq, the petitioner. and three others. 
The offence took 
place around 2.30 a.m. on August 22/'213, 1971, and 1the next morning 
the victim related the incident to the M ukhiya Sewika of the village. 
A report was made to the Police Station on August 23. 1971 at mid-day. 
The investigation that followed resulted in a charge-sheet, a trial and, 
eventually, in a conviction based substantially on the testimony of the 
F 
victim. 
Although some of the witnesses. tell-tale fashion. shifted their 
loyalties and betrayed the prosecution case, the· trial court: entered a 
finding of guilt against the appellant, giving 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.