125 IPC and sections 66E/66C/67/67A Information Technology Act 2000 (Amendment 2008) against the accused Animesh Boxi @ Ani Boxi @ Ani Bokshi beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. Hence it is ORDERED That the accused namely Animesh Boxi @ Ani Boxi @ Ani Bokshi is found guilty of the offence u/s 354A/354C/354D/509 of Indian Penal Code and under sections 66E/66C/67/67A Information Technology Act 2000 (Amendment 2008) and thereby convicted under the provisions of section 248 (2) of Cr. PC. Later: The convict is taken into custody. Before pronouncing the sentence the convict is required to be heard on the quantum of sentence. The convict submitted before this court that he is innocent and he has been made criminal in this case and he is also a student and to give a chance to complete his studies. It is submitted by the Ld. Defense Counsel that the convict is the only son of his family and the age of the convict is to be considered while pronouncing the sentence by this court. The Ld. Special PP submitted to pass such order not only to consider the convict but also to consider the condition as faced by the victim of this case. In Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 2012 SC 3802) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that “Sentencing policy is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no strait jacket formula for sentencing and accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objectives of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of