Cr. Appeal No. 590 of 1996 02.6.2010 Present: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General for the appellant. Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate, alongwith the accused. We had convicted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. We have heard the accused as well as his counsel Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocate, on the issue of sentence. It is argued on behalf of the accused that the accused has to support his aged parents who are aged about 80 years. He has also to support two children. One of whom studying in Class-8 and the daughter has left the school. It is also urged that the incident in question occurred more than 15 years back, therefore, a lenient view should be taken. The only extenuating circumstance we find is that this appeal has come up for hearing after 15 years. The accused is not to blame for delay in hearing of the appeal and therefore some benefit will have to be given to him. We may have even considered the other circumstances to treat the accused leniently but in this case we find that the accused has been found guilty of outraging the modesty of a girl who was aged about 8 years old. Therefore, leniency may be totally misplaced. Keeping in view all the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice will be met in case the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The accused is directed to surrender within 15 days from today failing which the learned trial Court shall execute the warrants in accordance with the law. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 2nd June, 2010 ( Rajiv Sharma) ™ Judge.