Nutty your examples are a bit different - in the first one the victim wasn't distressed and the 'rapist' thought she was 16. The court didn't blame the victim - they just said that as he hadn't known her age there was no benefit in prosecuting.
The India one sounds as if the victim's previous behaviour lead to a rapist being let off. I don't think that would happen here. Obviously if someone is very promiscuous it may be more difficult to prove rape as they may have history of doing similar things consensually whereas someone with no history of one night stands and who didn't tend to get blind drunk etc might be thought less likely to have agreed at the time. That is purely to do with proving the crime though - not to do with blaming the victim in any way.