Is Supreme Court unnecessarily setting legal precedent in rape cases

Is our Supreme Court spending court time on laying down legal gyan and more seriously, legal precedents, where none of the two were required in the first place. On first reading of the news item below about a recent SC judgment, that seems to be the case.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_supreme-court-indian-women-won-t-make-false-rape-claim_1329929

Mumbai: In an observation that could have far-reaching implications in the prosecution of rape cases, the Supreme Court recently observed that an Indian woman would never make a false allegation of rape, given the social stigma attached to it. This is likely to bolster the cases of rape victims and may have a bearing on recent cases involving actor Shiney Ahuja and Shree Ram Mills scion Abhishek Kasliwal.

“In Indian society, any girl or woman would not make such allegations (of rape) against a person as she is fully aware of the repercussions flowing therefrom. If she is found to be false (sic), she would be looked at by society with contempt throughout her life,” the apex court observed.

Upholding the seven-year imprisonment handed out to an auto-rickshaw driver who raped a 12-year-old in 1988, a bench of justices JM Panchal and Deepak Verma stated: “For an unmarried girl, it will be difficult to find a suitable groom. Therefore, unless an offence has really been committed, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any such incident had taken place which is likely to reflect on her chastity (sic). She would also be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by society.”

Comments: 7 years is the maximum sentence for rape, and well deserved by the accused for raping a minor. However, if you read the IPC 375 which defines rape, there is no need to go into details of case like whether the minor gave consent or not. The fact that a girl is below 16 years of age makes it as rape in any case.

Section 375. Rape
¹[Sexual offences]

1. Subs. by Act 43 of 1983, sec. 3, for the heading "Of rape".

¹[375. Rape.
A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: -
...
...
Sixthly: - With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.

Mincing no words to describe the social stigma faced by rape victims in India, the judges said, “It would be difficult for her to survive in Indian society which is not as forward-looking as the western countries are.”

If the observations of the apex court are applied by the prosecution in the cases of Ahuja and Kasliwal, they may have to brace themselves for a tough trial ahead.

While Ahuja’s trial against rape allegations made by his 20-year-old maid in June this year is yet to begin before the Sewri fast track court, charges have been framed against Kasliwal for raping a 52-year-old woman in March, 2006.

“The judgment can be relied on by the prosecution or the defence in any of these trials but how the sessions court will interpret it cannot be predicted as the facts of each case will vary,” criminal advocate Rohini Salian said. Since this precedent has been laid down by the Supreme Court, it is likely to be cited in rape trials before subordinate courts, she added.

“The court conducting the rape trial can certainly take these observations into account while appreciating the rest of the evidence before it,” said senior advocate Amit Desai. He, however, added that the Supreme Court’s observations alone cannot lead to conviction. “Their weightage may differ according to the totality of the facts and the defence taken by the accused,” Desai said.

Twenty-one years after the incident, the appeal of Wahid Khan, who was caught ‘red-handed’ by the police in Bhopal, was dismissed by the apex court. Under the guise of rescuing the girl from eve-teasers, Khan gave her a ride in his auto-rickshaw and took her to a deserted location where he raped her.

The apex court also took note of the fact that the girl’s statement had been consistent in her FIR as well as before the court. Moreover, the sub-inspector of police, BB Subba Rao, had told the court that when the accused was caught he and the girl were both naked waist-down.

The court held that the consistent statement of the victim and the testimony of the police officer who caught him red-handed had established the guilt of the accused.

Comments: So what was the need for Supreme court in giving so much gyan, or worse, giving scope for precedent setting in rape trials given that SC judgment has "binding precedent" effect on lower courts? It is already clear from the evidence etc that rape was committed. Now you are trying to tell the world why or under what circumstances a rape victim will or will not tell lies? Is this not an injustice to the victim in this case itself, when the law of the land clearly says it falls under rape, then where is the need to bolster the case on behalf of victim ? Or is it about some kind of fantasy where law can be created by the stroke of a judgment given by Supreme Court?