G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-96 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Criminal Appeal No. 52 of 1995 of that District, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has substantially dismissed the appeal. That appeal itself arose out of the judgment and order dated 25-5-95 passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Garautha, Distt. Jhansi in Criminal Case No. 822/88. The learned Magistrate had convicted the accused Munna on a charge u/s. 452 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo one years R. I. He was also convicted on a charge under S. 354 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo 6 months R. I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the FIR. on 4-11-94 at about 6 p. m. Smt. Sharda Devi, the daughter of the complainant, was all alone in her house. Other family members were outside the House. The accused, who is the resident of the same village, committed a criminal trespass with an intention to outrage the modesty of Smt. Sharda Devi. He caught both of her hands. The victim cried, resulting in the arrival of other witnesses from the nearby locality. Thereafter, the accused made good his escape. ( 3 ) A report was lodged promptly. After performing the rituals investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused. ( 4 ) THE prosecution had examined Smt. Sharma, PW-1 and Smt. Savitri, PW-2 (victim), apart from other evidence, which are formal in nature. . ( 5 ) THE accused in his statement u/s. 313 Cr. P. C. denied the allegations and had alleged that on account of enmity, he has been falsely implicated. ( 6 ) AFTER a thread-bare analysis of the entire evidence and circumstances on the record, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the charges under Ss. 452 I. P. C. and 354 I. P. C. are fully proved against the accused and he was convicted and sentenced accordingly by the learned Magistrate. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved, against this order the accused went in appeal before the learned Sessions, Judge, Jhansi, who converted the offence u/s. 452 I. P. C. to an offence u/s. 451 I. P. C. only and sentenced the accused to undergo 3 months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved, against this order the accused went in appeal before the learned Sessions, Judge, Jhansi, who converted the offence u/s. 452 I. P. C. to an offence u/s. 451 I. P. C. only and sentenced the accused to undergo 3 months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. 00. In default of payment of fine, further one months R. I. was awarded. ( 8 ) THE sentence u/s. 354 I. P. C. was modified by payment of Rs. 1000. 00 only as a fine. On failure to pay the fine, 6 months R. I. was awarded. 8a. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of both the Courts below, accused has approached this court by this revision u/s. 397 Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) I have heard Sri A. R. B. Kher, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. This revision has been admitted only on the point of sentence. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel has urged that this was the first offence committed by the accused. Therefore, a lenient view should be taken. I do not agree. ( 11 ) IN a broad day light, the accused had entered in the house of the lady and he tried to outrage her modesty and in that effort, he caught hold of both the hands of the lady. Therefore, it was not an innocent act as portrayed by the learned counsel for the revisionist. This is a very mischievious attempt on the part of the accused, who had entered into the house of the neighbour and tried to outrage the modesty of the lady. Therefore, serious view has to be taken. ( 12 ) I find that the 1st appellate Court has scanned the entire evidence and circumstances on the record very carefully and has come to a correct conclusion. I agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Magistrate as well as learned Judge. ( 13 ) THE sentence is extra-soft on the charge u/s. 354 I. P. C. This should not have been the case. Mere awarding of fine of Rs. 1000. 00 was not sufficient to meet the ends of justice. ( 14 ) I was going to issue notice to the accused to show cause as to why the sentence be not enhanced. Mere awarding of fine of Rs. 1000. 00 was not sufficient to meet the ends of justice. ( 14 ) I was going to issue notice to the accused to show cause as to why the sentence be not enhanced. However, looking to the incident, which occurred on 4-11-84, I find that more than 12 years have passed. Hence I desisted from doing so. However, further softening of the sentence is neither justified nor permissible in law. ( 15 ) THE revision is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed. .