B. N. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Garipada upholding the conviction of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the accused) under sections 447 and 354 I. P. C. but modifying the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the first count and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the second count. ( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the persecution case is that on 15. 10. 1987 at about 8. 30 to 9 A. M. while the prosecutrix Kumari Durgabati Dandapet (P. W. 1) aged about 19 years was easing in the Ban Adjoining her house, the accused along with one Dilip Kumar Patra went near the Ban and thereafter only the accused entered inside the Ban and outraged the modesty of P. W. 1 by holding her hand and pulling her wearing saree. On hearing the alarm raised by P. W. 1, when her mother Binatarani Dandapat (P. W. 2) came to the Ban, the accused took to his heels giving a threat to P. W. 1 that he will see her in future. The first information report (Ext. 1) detailing the above incident having been lodged at Badeahi Police Station, investigation was taken up and after completion of investigation charge-sheet having been submitted, the accused and his associate faced trial for the offences punishable under sections 447, 341, 342, 354, 506 read with Section 114 I. P. C. ( 3 ) THE defence was one of denial. According to the accused, the case had been falsely foisted out of previous enmity. ( 4 ) AT the trial, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses of whom P. W. 1 is the victim; P. Ws. 2 and 3 are respectively is the mother and elder sister of the victim before whom she immediately narrated the incident; P. W s. 4 and 5 are the two post-occurrence witnesses who did not support the prosecution case; P. W. 6 is the husband of P. W. 3 who had accompanied her at the time of lodging the F. I. R. and P. W. 7 is the police officer who investigated into the case. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record, the trial court believed the prosecution case but while acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under sections 341, 342 and 506 I. P. C, convicted him under sections 447 and 354 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under sections 447 I. P. C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 354 I. P. C. The co-accused of the etitioner was, however, acquitted being found not guilty. The accused preferred appeal against the judgment and order of the trial court which came to be heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Garipada and by the impugned judgment, the appellate court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence, as stated above. ( 5 ) SRI B. K. Panda, Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri P. K. Dhal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two contentions. His first contention is that in view of the admitted prior rivalry between the family of the accused and the family of the victim (P. W. 1), the courts below went wrong in relying on the uncorroborated testimony of P. W. 1 in convicting the accused particularly when the F. I. R. Ext. 1 was lodged 8 hours after the alleged occurrence and the delay in lodging the F. I. R. had not been explained by the prosecution. The learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment by stating that although there was prior enmity between the two families, the evidence of the victim (P. W. I) stood duly corroborated by the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 before whom she narrated the incident immediately after its happening. As regards the delay in lodging the F. I. R. , his submission is that there was no delay. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the families of the accused and that of the victim (P. W. 1) were in litigating term by the time of the alleged occurrence. Enmity is no doubt a double edged weapon but it merely puts the court on guard while assessing the evidence on record. Both the courts below have found that the evidence of the victim (P. W. 1) was duly corroborated by the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 and such finding is not assailed before me. Enmity is no doubt a double edged weapon but it merely puts the court on guard while assessing the evidence on record. Both the courts below have found that the evidence of the victim (P. W. 1) was duly corroborated by the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 and such finding is not assailed before me. Both the courts below have observed that the victim being a young girl could not have given evidence against him at the stake of her future marriage prospect, if the incident was not true. The correctness of such observation can never be doubted when there is no evidence on record to show that the victim was of questionable character. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said, as contended by the learned counsel for the accused, that the evidence of victim (P. W. 1) has not been corroborated by other evidence and circumstances. ( 7 ) AS regards delay, it is seen that the occurrence took place at about 8. 30 to 9. 00 A. M. on 15. 10. 1987 and the F. LR. was lodged at 5. 00 P. M. of the same day. The impugned judgment further shows that the police station where F. I. R. was lodged is at a distance of about 6 K. Ms. from the village in question. With these facts when there is no evidence as to communication facilities to connect the village in question with the police station, it can scarcely be said that there was any delay in lodging the F. I. R. When the victim (P. W. 1) is a young girl it is quite reasonable to expect that she should have waited for some male member to accompany her to police station. She has stated that after the arrival of her sisterts husband (P. W. 6) who was not there in the house at the time of the alleged occurrence she went along with him to lodge the report. Even if it is taken that there was some delay in lodging the F. I. R. , then also the explanation furnished by the victim (P. W. 1) appears to be adequate and reasonable. That being so, the submission raised on behalf of the accused that there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. is not correct. That being so, the submission raised on behalf of the accused that there is no explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. is not correct. ( 8 ) ON the aforesaid analysis, I hold that the impugned judgment upholding the conviction of the accused under sections 447 and 354 I. P. C. cannot be found fault with. ( 9 ) IT is lastly submitted by Mr. Panda that since the accused was hardly aged about 19 years at the time of the alleged occurrence, he should be given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short 'the Act ). the said Act is a piece of social legislation which mandates reformation of juveniles offenders so as to bring them from becoming hardened criminal by providing adequate reformative to them by the Government. His act of outraging modesty consisted of only catching hold of the hand of the victim girl and pulling her wearing saree. There is no allegation that either he kissed or squeezed the breasts of the victim girl. The accused is a first offender and the serious offence under which he is convicted prescribes the sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Under these circumstances, it is considered expedient that, instead of sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, he should be released under Section 3 of the Act. Accordingly, the accused is released under Section 3 of the Act, but he should appear before the trial court for due admonition on 30. 1. 1995 at 10. 30 A. M. The learned counsel for the accused shall intimate the accused the date of his appearance in the trial court. ( 10 ) SUBJECT to modification in the sentence, the revision is dismissed. The L. C. R. be dispatched immediately. Revision dismissed subject to modification in sentence.