“The additional sessions judge had rightly observed that in view of the testimony of the child that she got married to the respondent (man) in the month of December, 2014 and only thereafter did they have physical relationship, no offence under Section 6 read with Section 5(1) of POCSO Act was made out and the respondent was rightly acquitted,” a bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna said, according to PTI.

The High Court said there was no ground for grant of leave to appeal against the trial court’s verdict and dismissed an application filed by the police.

“We find that since the child victim was the wife who was almost fifteen years of age, the physical relationship of the respondent with the victim, cannot be termed as rape. The respondent has been rightly acquitted,” the bench said.

Under the exception given in Section 375 (rape) of the IPC, sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, the wife not being under 15 years, is not rape. According to the prosecution, a rape case was lodged against the man in 2015 on the complaint of the girl’s mother after finding out that her minor daughter was pregnant, the report added

The girl, in her testimony before the trial court, submitted that the man who was her brother-in-law had married her in December 2014 after which he established physical relations with her with her consent and she became pregnant.

“What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” the Supreme Court bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said after it was informed of an order by the High Court on Saturday.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Gujarat government, said Saturday’s order was passed only to fix a “clerical error”. “There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding,” he said, adding, “We as the state government will request the judge to recall the order,” NDTV reported.

The Supreme Court on Saturday flagged the delay by the high court in deciding the rape survivor’s petition, saying “valuable time” has been lost. The bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan then said they would hear the matter today. The Supreme Court criticised the “lackadaisical attitude” of the High Court and issued notices to the Gujarat government and others, seeking their responses to the woman’s plea.

The counsel for the 25-year-old’s victim told the Supreme Court that she approached the court on August 7 and the matter was heard the next day. The High Court on August 8 directed that a medical board be formed to look into the status of the petitioner’s pregnancy and her health condition.

In its report, the medical college ruled that the pregnancy can be terminated. The Supreme Court noted that the report was taken on record by the High Court on August 11 but “strangely”, the matter was listed 12 days later, “losing sight of the fact that every day’s delay was crucial and of great significance having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case”.

“In such cases, there must be, not undue urgency, but at least a sense of urgency in such matters and not a lackadaisical attitude of treating it as any normal case and just adjourning it. We are sorry to say and make this remark,” the bench orally said.