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.
Parties
Rafiq
Petitioner
State of U.P.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Petition Dismissed by Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether absence of injuries on the prosecutrix is fatal to the prosecution in rape cases
- 2 Whether corroborating evidence is an imperative component in rape cases
- 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment