JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. P. S. Dayal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2001 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Hazaribagh in G. R. No. 1453 of 1994 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 287 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 6 months has been affirmed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that in the night intervening 23/24 July, 1994, one Baleshwar Karmali an unskilled labour under the contractor M/s. Anup Construction , P.T.P.S., Patratu received burn injury due to electric flash while working in 6.6 KV switchgear and has subsequently died in course of treatment in RMCH, Ranchi. The petitioner at the time of the incident was an Assistant Engineer at PTPS, Patratu. In view of the aforesaid allegations, G. R. No. 1453 of 1994 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge-sheet and after cognizance was taken, the case was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Hazaribagh, wherein after framing of charge trial proceeded. In course of trial since the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petitioner has been convicted under Section 287 of I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months vide judgment dated 28.02.1997. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1997 which was dismissed on 18.10.2001 by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. 4. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence of the witnesses do not inspire confidence as the same has not been corroborated. It has further been submitted that there are contradictions galore in such evidences which does not substantiate the role of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which has caused great prejudice to the defence. It has also been stated that the Incharge of the Unit was one Ram Deo Prasad Yadav and not the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined which has caused great prejudice to the defence. It has also been stated that the Incharge of the Unit was one Ram Deo Prasad Yadav and not the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the contractor under whom the deceased was working has been acquitted while the petitioner has been given a discriminatory treatment by convicting him under Section 287 of I.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that, there are no eye-witness to the occurrence. It has thus been submitted that none of the courts below has properly appreciated the evidence on record which would point to the non-involvement of the petitioner and therefore, he deserves acquittal. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer and has stated that in the background of consistent evidence of the witnesses , the non-examination of the I.O. does not have much significance and can have no bearing on the ultimate result of the present application. It has been stated that at the time when the incident was taking place, the petitioner was Incharge of the shift being the Assistant Engineer and therefore, it was incumbent upon him to have taken safety measures and if such measures had been taken, the mishap could not have occurred. 6. In course of trial 8 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1 – Uday Singh is the informant of the case. This witness is not an eye-witness. He has stated that he does not know who was Incharge at the relevant point of time. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 3 – Janki Karmali is the uncle of the deceased who has stated that on the date of incident, his nephew was deployed for cleaning the 6.6 KV Unit and in course of which he had received injuries by electric current after which he was shifted to the hospital wherein he ultimately succumbed to the burn injuries suffered by him. This eye-witness was on duty and had come to know about the incident on alarm having been raised by the others. This witness is a permanent staff of the said Unit where 75-80 MW of electricity was being generated. He also stated that the petitioner was Incharge of the Unit and used to live at the premises at the place of occurrence. This witness is a permanent staff of the said Unit where 75-80 MW of electricity was being generated. He also stated that the petitioner was Incharge of the Unit and used to live at the premises at the place of occurrence. P.W. 3 – Gopi Nath Karmali is not a eye-witness. This witness has stated that he was in the house when the accident had taken place. P.W. 4 – Preet Karmali is the father of the deceased. This witness is also not an eye-witness. P.W. 5 – Nawal Kishore Ojha was the Assistant Engineer at P.T.P.S., Patratu. This witness has stated that the Assistant Executive Engineer namely, Ram Deo Prasad Yadav was the Incharge of the Unit and the petitioner was working under him. P.W. 6 – Ramdeo Prasad Yadav was the Assistant Executive Engineer who has stated that he could not say as to on account of whose carelessness the incident had taken place. P.W. 7 – Vijay Kumar Rajak has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 8 – Upendra Thakur is the formal witness who has proved the Post Mortem Report. 7. The petitioner was posted as an Assistant Engineer at PTPS, Patratu when the incident had taken place. Although the defence had tried to project that it was Ramdeo Prasad Yadav who was the Incharge of the Unit, but as would be evident at the time the incident had taken place, the petitioner was Incharge and therefore it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have taken appropriate safety measures to prevent any mishap. The place of occurrence is 6.6 KV Unit of PTPS, Patratu which according to the version of P.W. 2 generates 75-80 MW of electricity. The Unit therefore was a sensitive place and only skilled labourers were required to be deployed to prevent any mishaps or any untoward incident. The evidence of the witnesses further discloses that the deceased – Baleshwar Karmali was an unskilled labour of the contractor – M/s. Anup Construction Ltd. who on the fateful night had been deployed for cleaning purposes in the 6.6 KV Unit of PTPS. The petitioner being the Incharge of the shift was required to oversee the deployment of skilled labour apart from the fact that safety measures were not in place to avoid any accident. The petitioner being the Incharge of the shift was required to oversee the deployment of skilled labour apart from the fact that safety measures were not in place to avoid any accident. P.W. 5 – Nawal Kishore Ojha had conveniently placed the burden upon Ramdeo Prasad Yadav by stating that it was Ramdeo Prasad Yadav who was the Incharge and the petitioner was working under him whereas in fact the statement of Ramdeo Prasad Yadav clearly reveals that he was not Incharge of the Unit when the accident had taken place. The statement of P.W. 5 seems to be only to save the petitioner as P.W. 5 was also an Assistant Engineer at PTPS, Patratu. The Contractor namely, Praveen Kumar has been acquitted because his duty was to supply labour and it was never a part of his duty to deploy workers or assign work to the workers. The onus therefore was upon the petitioner being the Incharge of the shift to take effective measures to create a safe environment for the employees to do their work. The failure on the part of the petitioner had led to the incident and therefore, the learned trial court was justified in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 287 of I.P.C. and sentencing him accordingly. 8. The judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court is hereby sustained. 9. So far as the sentence imposed upon the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the petitioner is facing the rigors of the prosecution case since the year 1994. The petitioner appears to be almost 70 years of age at present. Considering the long pendency of the case, the petitioner deserves some leniency with respect to the sentence which has been imposed upon him. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the petitioner is modified to the period already undergone. 10. This application stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.