( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated 20-07-2001 passed in S. C. No. 537 of 1999 by the IV Additional sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar, wherein the appellant-accused No. l was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of rs. 1,800/-, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for shortipc ). ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution as narrated by the prosecutrix who was. examined as PW. 2, is that she is a resident of khanampalli village and is residing in that village along with her brother and mother, who were examined as PWs. l and 3 respectively. About four months prior to the date of the report i. e. , 25. 08. 1996, on one day in the evening at about 3. 00 p. m. when pw. 2 was grazing goats in the outskirts; of the village at a place called as peddagumpula, the appellant-A-1 and A. 2 (since died)came there and made her to consume toddy and later committed rape on her one after another. Later she returned to her house. At that time her mother, PW. 3, was not in the village and she was staying with another daughter at Katnapalli village and after her return i. e. , four months after the incident, she came to know that pw. 2 is pregnant and when she questioned, PW. 2 informed her that the appellant and another committed rape on her. Thereafter, pw-3 informed the matter to her son, who was examined as PW-1. Later, PWs. l and 3 went to one Mallareddy i. e. , Sarpanch of that village and the Sarpanch arranged a panchayat at Chavadi. Though elders summoned the accused, they did not attend the panchayat and hence PWs. l, 2 and 3 went to Dhamaram Police station and gave a report on 25. 08. 1996. Based on the report, a case in Cr. No. 92/96 was registered by the Sub Inspector of police, who was examined as PW-10. During the course of investigation PW. 2 was referred to the Government Head Quarters hospital, Karimnagar, along with Ex. P. 7, requisition, for medical examination. The Doctor, who was examined as PW. 9, examined pw. 08. 1996. Based on the report, a case in Cr. No. 92/96 was registered by the Sub Inspector of police, who was examined as PW-10. During the course of investigation PW. 2 was referred to the Government Head Quarters hospital, Karimnagar, along with Ex. P. 7, requisition, for medical examination. The Doctor, who was examined as PW. 9, examined pw. 2 and opined that she is pregnant and her pregnancy was about 20 to 22 weeks old as on the date of her examination. After completion of investigation, PW-11 filed charge sheet against the appellant and another for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3 (i) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. ( 3 ) INITIALLY, on appearance of A-1 and A-2 and on hearing both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 376 of IPC against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 4 ) DURING the course of trial, A-2 died, therefore, the case against him stood abated. It appears, the learned Additional sessions Judge during the trial came to the conclusion that as it was a gang rape, framed an amended charge under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC against A-l, read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The gravamen of the charge framed by the learned Additional sessions Judge is as follows: "that about 5 months prior to 25. 8. 1996 on one day in pedda Gumpula kanche in Khanampalli Village, A. 1 of you along A. 2 (since died) committed rape on one Tandra rajamma. daughter of Yellaiah, while she was grazing goats and who was suffering from mental disability and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. " ( 5 ) TO establish its case, the prosecution examined PWs. l to 13 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 14. On an analysis of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that a-l is guilty of the offence with which he was charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. l to 13 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 14. On an analysis of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that a-l is guilty of the offence with which he was charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-A-1 has come up with the present criminal appeal. ( 6 ) HEARD Sri C. Praveenkumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that there is abnormal delay of more than four months in lodging the report and the said delay is not at all explained by the prosecution and hence according to him, the case against the appellant has to be brushed aside. It is his further contention that the evidence of the Investigating Officer establishes that the pregnancy was purely because of the sexual act of A-2, as per the paternity test conducted by the doctors, and thus contends that the appellant cannot be found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of I. P. C. His further submission is that even as per the evidence: of PW. 2, one Chinthalapalli Rajaiah gagged her mouth and committed rape at Chinthalapalli under a banyan tree and when she reported the same to the Sarpanch, the Sarpanch enquired and imposed a fine of Rs. 500/-, which was collected and paid to PW. 2. Hence, the learned Counsel contends that the prosecution for the reasons best known to it, instead of prosecuting the said Chinthapalli Rajaiah, filed charge sheet against the appellant and another. the learned Counsel has drawn my attention to various inconsistent statements made by PW-2 in her evidence. It is his further submission that except the testimony of the victim-PW. 2 and her mother who was examined as PW. 3, there is no other evidence establishing the fact that the appellant has committed rape on PW-2 and hence the said conviction is liable to be set aside. It is his further submission that except the testimony of the victim-PW. 2 and her mother who was examined as PW. 3, there is no other evidence establishing the fact that the appellant has committed rape on PW-2 and hence the said conviction is liable to be set aside. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the said submissions and contended that the trial Judge has given due weight to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in coming to the conclusion that the appellant-A. 1 is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) of IPC and thus, it is not a fit case for interference. ( 8 ) IT is true that the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses, of whom PWs. 4 to 8 are the witnesses to speak about the alleged incident. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant except the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3, there is absolutely no other evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. PW. 1 is the brother of the victim-PW. 2 and PWs. 4 to 8 are the independent witnesses. They did not support the case of the prosecution. ( 9 ) IN the normal circumstances, the non-availability of the evidence of the independent witnesses may be crucial. But in a case of this nature, this court is of the view that it is immaterial as to whether the said witnesses i. e. PWs. 4 to 8 have supported the case of the prosecution or not, since the victim i. e. PW. 2 has clearly stated as to how the incident has taken place. In the case on hand, as already stated the victim woman i. e. PW-2 is a mentally unsound person. The learned Additional sessions Judge, who had an occasion to see her, has observed that pw. 2 is always seen laughing and she is not serious about her giving evidence and she also scratches her head now and then and she behaved like a child. He also observed that during the course of her evidence she is not able to state anything coherently. The learned trial Judge had an occasion to know the demeanour of the witness and he is the best person to assess the condition of the witness. He also observed that during the course of her evidence she is not able to state anything coherently. The learned trial Judge had an occasion to know the demeanour of the witness and he is the best person to assess the condition of the witness. From that angle, it is clear that the victim is an unsound person and hence, the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant need not be given. ( 10 ) IN fact the mother, who was examined P. W. 3 has clearly stated during the course of her examination in chief that they could not perform the marriage of PW. 2, as she is a mentally retarded person and nobody was willing to come forward to marry her. Of course, it is true as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW. 2 was not subjected to any medical test, but in my considered view, it is not necessary that she should have been referred to a Medical Board to know her mental capacity. As already stated, the learned trial Judge had an occasion to know the mental condition of the victim and her demeanour. Having regard to these circumstances, this Court is of the view that PW. 2 has not spoken anything false. ( 11 ) TIME and again the Courts held that it is not the quantity of evidence, which is helpful to the case of the prosecution, but it is the quality of evidence, which is essential in deciding the cases. In fact, it is also held that the solitary testimony of a victim alone is sufficient to base a conviction. In the instant case, no doubt, all the witnesses, including the brother of PW. 2, did not support the case of the prosecution and the evidence of victim also is not consistent. But it can be clearly understood from the said evidence that the appellant and A. 2, who died during the course of trial, committed rape on the victim. In fact, this Court anxiously looked into the evidence of PW. 2 and this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the witness has come up with clean hands and lodged the complaint against the appellant-accused as stated supra. May be, there are certain inconsistencies in the statement of PW. In fact, this Court anxiously looked into the evidence of PW. 2 and this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the witness has come up with clean hands and lodged the complaint against the appellant-accused as stated supra. May be, there are certain inconsistencies in the statement of PW. 2, but they cannot be of any help to the appellant-accused and this Court is unable to draw any adverse inference from the evidence of PW. 2. The evidence of PW-2 is inspiring confidence that the appellant alone has committed rape on her. May be it is true that the paternity test shows that A2 is responsible for the pregnancy, but in my considered view, the said paternity certificate also establishes the fact that the appellant has committed the act of rape. According to PW. 2, the appellant and A. 2 came to the scene of offence, made her to consume toddy and thus committed the said offence and on account of that sexual intercourse, PW. 2 became pregnant. Basing on that it cannot be inferred that the appellant has Nothing to do with the alleged offence. As already observed, having regard to the fad that the victim woman is of unsound mind and her evidence is cogent and convincing, this court is not going into the other facts of delay in lodging the FIR etc. The evidence of the victim, who was examined as PW. 2 alone is sufficient to hold that the appellant is guilty of the offence with which he was charged. ( 12 ) IN view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the trial Judge has rightly found the: appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the Court below. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, as the alleged offences took place some time during 1996 and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was aged only 17 years as on the date of the offence, this court Is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, If the sentence of imprisonment of seven years as imposed by the trial Court is reduced to three years. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction imposed on the appellant-A-1 in S. C. No. 537 of 1999 dated 20. 07. 2001 by the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track court), Karimnagar. ( 13 ) HOWEVER, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years imposed on the appellant-A-1 is reduced to (3) three years. The sentence of fine imposed by the Court below shall stand undisturbed.