RAFIQ versus STATE OF U.P.

RAFIQ versus STATE OF U.P.

The absence of injuries or corroboration cannot mechanically be extended as a requirement in all rape cases; each case must be considered on its own facts. Testimony of the prosecutrix, accepted by two courts, suffices when there are no strong circumstances militating against its veracity. No interference is warranted under Article 136 as there is no manifest injustice or significant error of law.

Parties
Petitioner: Rafiq; Respondent: State of U.P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 August 1980
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Petition Dismissed by Supreme Court
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Rape, Article 136 (special Leave to Appeal), Evidence and Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rafiq

Petitioner

State of U.P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Petition Dismissed by Supreme Court

  1. 1 Whether absence of injuries on the prosecutrix is fatal to the prosecution in rape cases
  2. 2 Whether corroborating evidence is an imperative component in rape cases
  3. 3 When the Supreme Court would interfere with concurrent findings of fact on appeal under Article 136

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of injuries or corroboration cannot mechanically be extended as a requirement in all rape cases; each case must be considered on its own facts. Testimony of the prosecutrix, accepted by two courts, suffices when there are no strong circumstances militating against its veracity. No interference is warranted under Article 136 as there is no manifest injustice or significant error of law.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with the conviction or quantum of punishment
  • Special leave refused