Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 20. 9. 2006 passed by the 6 t h Additional District Judge, fast Track Court, Sagar in Criminal Appeal No. 309/2005, whereby he has dismissed the appeal on merits. ( 2. ) THE trial court convicted the applicant for offences under sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment on both counts. The jail sentences were ordered to run concurrently. ( 3. ) THE victim of the incident is Ranu who was aged about 16 years on the date of incident. ( 4. ) THE prosecution case that has been proved against the applicant is that on the night of 9. 5. 2001 when Ranu was sleeping in her house, he managed to enter the house and then out raged her modesty. The prosecution has also proved that when Ranu cried for help, the applicant criminally intimidated her. The first information report about the incident was lodged by Ranu at Police station, Deori, District Sagar on the following morning. ( 5. ) RANU has clearly testified that on the night of 9. 5. 2001, the applicant had first out raged her modesty while she was sleeping in her house and when she cried for help, he criminally intimidated her. The evidence of ranu has been substantially corroborated by Omkar (P. W. 2) and Ku. Rashmi (P. W. 5 ). Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of these witnesses to discredit them. ( 6. ) THE trial court as well as the appellate court have recorded a finding against the applicant that he not only out raged the modesty of Ranu but also criminally intimidated her. Both the Courts below have given cogent reasons in support of their aforesaid conclusion. The finding to the above effect is amply borne out from the evidence and materials brought on record. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any illegality and perversity in the concurrent findings of the two courts below regarding the conviction of the applicant under sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the applicant under these sections is, therefore, hereby affirmed. ( 7. ) SO far as the question of sentence is concerned, the applicant has already undergone about one month and 10 days of the jail sentence. The conviction of the applicant under these sections is, therefore, hereby affirmed. ( 7. ) SO far as the question of sentence is concerned, the applicant has already undergone about one month and 10 days of the jail sentence. There is nothing on record to suggest that he is a habitual offender. He is also stated to be a labourer and has reformed himself. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and the period of time that has already elapsed, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met by awarding a sentence for the period already undergone by the applicant. ( 8. ) WITH the above modification in the sentence, the revision is partly allowed.