RAFIQ Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 shame our ancient cultural heritage and humane claims and betrays 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.

(2.) Draupadi, a middle-aged Bai Sewika in a village welfare organization, was sleeping in a girls' school where she was allegedly raped by Rafiq, the petitioner, and three others. The offence took place around 2.30 a.m. on August 22/23, 1971, and the next morning the victim related the incident to the Mukhya 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 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 the benefit of doubt to the other three obscurely. A 7 year sentence of rigorous imprisonment was awarded as justly merited, having regard to the circumstances. The appeal carried to the High Court proved unsuccessful but, undaunted, the petitioner has sought leave to appeal to this Court.

(3.) Concurrent findings of fact ordinarily acquire a deterrent sanctity and tentative finality when challenged in this Court and we rarely invoke the special jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution which is meant mainly to correct manifest injustice or errors of law of great moment. By these substantial canons the present petition for leave has not even a dog's chance.