G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. This a Criminal Revision arising out of judge ment and order dated 14-2-1996 passed by the Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 40/95- Ram Pal v. State of U. P. The learned Sessions Judge by virtue of his order, has confirmed the conviction of the accused under various Sections of the IPC. But he has modified the sentence as below: 2. The accused had been convicted and charged under Sections 452, 453 and 323, IPC. He was awarded 8 months R. I, on a charge under Sec tion 452, IPC and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 on failure to pay the fine, 3 months, Additional R. I. was awarded. On a charge under Section 354, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo one years R. I and further ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, On failure to pay the fine, 3 months R. I. was awarded. On a charge under Section 323, IPC, he was awarded 6 months R. I. 3. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of con viction under all the heads. But he reduced the sentence under Section 452, IPC to 3 months R. 1. The sentence of the fine was maintained as it was. Under Section 354, IPC, the sentence was reduced to 5 months R. I. But the sentence of fine was maintained. On a charge under Section 323, IPC, the sentence was reduced to 3 months R. I. 4. This revision has been admitted only on the point of sentence. 5. Sri Krishna Murari lodged the report at the police station on 14-2-1991 with the allegations that during the absence of his wife and himself and two other daughters, namely, Ram Guni and Rashma, Kumari Khajana was alone in the house. At about 11 a. m. , when Kumari Ram Guni and Rashma had gone to the fileds to take fodder, Kumari Khajana aged about 4 years, was all alone. Accused Ram Pal was trying to drag Kumari Khajana inside the house in order to commit rape upon her. The two other minor girls, namely Ram Guni and Rashma incidentally reached at the very time. They saw the accused dragging Kumari Khajana and also beating her with the Rinch. The complainant Krishna Murari and his wife returned in the evening from Mela. Then they were informed about the incident. The two other minor girls, namely Ram Guni and Rashma incidentally reached at the very time. They saw the accused dragging Kumari Khajana and also beating her with the Rinch. The complainant Krishna Murari and his wife returned in the evening from Mela. Then they were informed about the incident. He lodged the report at the police station on the same day. Kumari Khajana was examined. One multiple abraided contusion 5 cm X 4 cm. on the left cheek in all directions was found on the person of Kumari Khajana. The other injury was multiple abraided contusion 7 cm. x 5 cm. over right side face right cheek, irregular in all directions. The third injury was traumatic swelling 2 cm. x 1 cm. on the part of the nose, left side. 6. The prosecution examined the complainant Krishna Murari, Kumari Khajana (the victim) two other daughters Kumari Reshma and Kumari Ram Guni and Dr. Jasbir Singh apart from the I. O. The accused denied his involvement in the crime. However, the learned Magistrate after appraising the entire evidence and circumstances on the record and taking into consideration the statement made under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , found the accused guilty on the aforesaid charges and convicted and sentenced him as noted above. 7. The accused filed an appeal. But the learned Sessions Junge after reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and modified the sentences as noted below: 8. Now the accused before me has simply prayed for some leniency in the sentence. It was urged by the learned counsel for the accused that at the time of the occurrence, the accused was a young boy of 23 years and this was his first crime. Hence a leniency should be shown. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find very little force in this appeal. However, since the incident took place about 5 years earlier and the accused is in the state of locus penitentia and further this is a fact that this is the first crime committed by the accused, I wish to make a marginal allowance in the sentence award ed by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. However, since the incident took place about 5 years earlier and the accused is in the state of locus penitentia and further this is a fact that this is the first crime committed by the accused, I wish to make a marginal allowance in the sentence award ed by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. This fact cannot be denied that Kumari Khajana, a 14 years old girl, was all alone in her house and the accused, who is a neighbour of the complainant, tried to misuse the opportunity. He was dragging her for a safer place to commit rape. So his intention was totally reprehensible. When the girl resisted, he caused injuries upon her person and most prob ably, bite her cheeks. He also caused injuries with a Rinch. The statement of Dr. Jasbir Singh, PW 5 has gone totally unscathed in the cross-examina tion. Under these circumstances, the court cannot grant a long rape to the accused like this appellant who had not cared to the fact that the girl was a helpless daughter of his own neighbour. 11. Moreover, the sentence should not be so lenient that the accused and other like him, may make a mockery of it. The public may lose confindence in the administration of justice if the sentence are totally flimsy nature. Every sentence must have an aspect of deterrence, so that the public may not feel encouraged to commit crime. Law and order of the society in general, may not get disturbed. 12. Taking all these factors into consideration, I find that the sentence under Section 452, IPC should remain as modified by the learned Sessions Judge. 13. Under Section 354, IPC, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 only. He is not sentenced to undergo jail imprisonment, on a charge under Section 323, IPC. 14. On a charge under Section 323, IPC, the sentence of R. I, is modified. Instead of R. I. the accused shall pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. On failure to pay the fine, he shall undergo R. I. for a period of 3 months. 15. Out of the amount of fine so recovered from the accused, the prosecutrix Km. Khajana should be paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 by way of compensation. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 16. 2,000. On failure to pay the fine, he shall undergo R. I. for a period of 3 months. 15. Out of the amount of fine so recovered from the accused, the prosecutrix Km. Khajana should be paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 by way of compensation. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 16. The accused is given two months time to pay the fine as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge, duly approved by this Court. 17. The accused is in jail. He shall be released after serving the sentence as duly modified by this Court, 18. The revision is accordingly allowed partly. Revision partly allowed. .