PRAYAGRAJ, Oct. 17 -- The Allahabad high court, in its recent order, has held that a man can be convicted for having sexual intercourse with a minor wife of over 15 years age, only after Supreme Court's judgment in Independent Thought vs Union Of India (2017), and not prior to that. Justice Anil Kumar, while relying on the Supreme Court judgement, set aside a 2007 conviction of one Islam alias 'Paltoo', against whom an FIR was lodged that he kidnapped a minor and later, had a physical relationship with her. The apex court in 'Independent Thought case', read down exception 2 to Section 375 (rape) IPC, which provided that sexual intercourse with wife above 15 years of age is not rape- to read as wife of 18 years of age or above. The SC, in its judgement, had specifically clarified that this amendment applied prospectively and not retrospectively. The facts of the case before high court were that an FIR was lodged against the appellant - Islam that he had enticed away the informant's 16-year-old daughter. Later, she was recovered, her medical examination was conducted and her statement recorded, after which, charges under IPC sections 363, 366, and 376 were framed against the appellant. The appellant's plea was that he and the victim had entered into marriage on August 29, 2005 and produced 'nikahnama' in his support. The trial court observed that based on the victim's statement, it could not be inferred that she was enticed away. It observed that the parties performed 'nikah' and stayed together for a month as a happily married couple. However, the trial court convicted the appellant as the victim was a minor. The court observed that since the girl willingly eloped with the man and the physical relationship between the man and the victim was after the solemnisation of their marriage, it could not be said that the victim was kidnapped. Thus, no offence under IPC Section 366 was made out. Observing that the amendment to Section 375 regarding rape of minor wife was made with prospective effect from the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the high court held that the appellant could not be held guilty for sex after marriage with his minor wife in 2005. Accordingly, the court set aside the conviction order. The court observed, "From the foregoing observations as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Independent Thought (supra), it is very much apparent that exception 2 of Section 375 IPC has been struck down on the ground that the said provision is inconsistent with the provisions of Pocso Act and is also violative of Article 14, 15 and 21. But it has also been held that the said judgment of the Supreme Court will have prospective effects. In this particular case, it is apparent that the alleged occurrence had occurred way back in the year 2005. Therefore, appellant cannot be held guilty for commission of rape because the victim at the time of occurrence was above 16 years and physical relations between the two had taken place after solemnisation of their marriage."...