JUDGMENT : BIBHU DATTA GURU, J. 1. Since both the appeals arising out of same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, they are being considered and decided by this common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C are against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 173/2014 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge Durg, C.G., whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the construction work of Amrapali Vananchal City, Bhilai was being carried out under M/s Ultrahome Construction Pvt. Ltd. At the relevant time, accused S.K. Singh was working as the Project Head at Bhilai. The supervision of construction quality and monitoring of the work in accordance with rules was entrusted to Supervisor Jitendra Singh, while Satyendra Singh was working as Foreman, Ashish Singh as Site Engineer, and Ashish Shukla as Contractor. For the construction of the said building, mason Kailan, along with workers Bhagwat, Chhabi, Arun, and the deceased Lalit Chaturvedi, were present at the site on the date of incident, i.e., 04.02.2013. At about 9:30 A.M., centering work involving tying of iron rods was being carried out on the second floor of under construction building. At that time, mason Kailan was preparing mortar on the ground floor. The deceased Lalit Chaturvedi was carrying an iron rod of approximately 6 meters in length from the ground floor to the upper floor for centering purposes. At the same time, Rom Singh, Arun, Chhabi, and Bhagwat were engaged in tying the rods. At about 10:00 A.M., while Lalit Chaturvedi was lifting the iron rod upwards from the ground floor, the overhead electric line was live. One end of the iron rod came into contact with the live electric line, as a result of which Lalit Chaturvedi suffered an electric shock and fell headfirst on the slab, sustaining a severe head injury. He was immediately taken by Supervisor Ramkaran, mason Kailan, Contractor Ashish Shukla, and 10–15 labourers in the company vehicle of Amrapali Vananchal City to a nursing home in Bhilai for treatment; however, he was not admitted there. Thereafter, he was taken to Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, where he succumbed to death at about 10:35 A.M. The hospital authorities kept the dead body in the mortuary. Thereafter, he was taken to Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, where he succumbed to death at about 10:35 A.M. The hospital authorities kept the dead body in the mortuary. Thereafter, Contractor Ashish Shukla, Engineer Ashish Rangari, and Supervisor Ramkaran returned to Bhilai. It is stated that the General Manager of the company, the contractor, the supervisor, and the engineer were all aware about the fact that three overhead electric lines passing above the under- construction building were live and a serious accident could occur. Despite such knowledge, the work was continued by engaging labourers without taking necessary safety precautions. Due to such negligence and lack of due care, Lalit Chaturvedi died as a result of electrocution. 4. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the competent jurisdictional Court. After framing the charges against the accused/ appellants, the charges were read out and explained to the appellants, they denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/ appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 31.03.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence, these appeals. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. They would submit that the conviction against the appellants is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. They would submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel would also submit that the conviction of the appellants is bad in law, as the essential ingredients of Section 304-A IPC are not made out and no rash or negligent act is attributable to the appellants. It is further submitted that the trial Court itself recorded a finding that the negligence was on the part of the Electricity Department, and not the appellants. Therefore, the prosecution having failed to establish the proximate cause of death or criminal negligence on the part of the appellants. It is further submitted that the trial Court itself recorded a finding that the negligence was on the part of the Electricity Department, and not the appellants. Therefore, the prosecution having failed to establish the proximate cause of death or criminal negligence on the part of the appellants. They would also submit that without there being any cogent and clinching evidence, the conviction of the appellants is bad in the eyes of law. Hence, the impugned judgment and sentence are contrary to the evidence on record and deserve to be set aside. Learned counsel further prayed that this Court after considering the contradictions and lack of reliable evidence against the appellants, may be pleased to partly allow both these appeals by reducing the sentence already undergone by the appellants. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellants is well merited which does not call for any interference. Therefore, these appeals deserve to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The question for consideration before this Court is whether the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants under Section 304-A of the IPC, for which the relevant testimonies and evidence on record are required to be examined, as observed below. 11. PW-5 Basantbai, mother of the deceased, stated that her son was working at Amrapali Vananchal City, Bhilai, under the concerned company, where construction work including tying of iron rods was being carried out. She deposed that three persons from the company came to her house and informed that her son had been taken to Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, pursuant to which she went to the hospital along with them. She stated that on reaching the hospital, she saw an injury on the head of her son and noticed burn marks on his hands and palms, which appeared to be caused by electric current, and his body had been kept on ice. She further stated that she suspected involvement of the labourers working at the site and contractor Ashish Shukla in the death of her son. She further stated that she suspected involvement of the labourers working at the site and contractor Ashish Shukla in the death of her son. However, she admitted that she had not witnessed the incident and her suspicion was based only on the condition in which she saw her son at the hospital. In her cross-examination, this witness admitted the fact that although she stated in Court that the labourers and Ashish Shukla had caused the death of her son, such statement did not find place in her police statement and she was unable to assign any reason for the omission. 12. Thus, from her testimony, it emerges that while she spoke about the condition of the deceased at the hospital, her allegation regarding the involvement of the labourers and contractor was based on suspicion and not on any direct knowledge of the occurrence. 13. PW-2 Sharad Kumar Band, Assistant Engineer in the Electricity Department, deposed that on being informed by the police about the death of a person due to electrocution inside the Amrapali Vananchal City Compound, he was directed to inspect the spot and submit a report. He stated that pursuant to letter Ex.P-1 dated 09.02.2013, he submitted his report Ex.P-2 to the Station House Officer, Jamul. He stated that as per his inspection and records, two 11 K.V. overhead electric lines, namely Kurud Feeder and Vaishali Nagar Feeder, were passing over the construction site since the last 20–25 years, and construction beneath such high-tension lines was not permissible. He further stated that Amrapali Group had applied on 28.02.2012 for shifting of the said 11 K.V. lines, technical sanction was accorded, requisite charges were deposited, and permission was granted to carry out shifting through an ‘A’ Class contractor. He stated that the construction company was required to complete the shifting work on or before 31.12.2012; however, the lines were not shifted till the date of the incident i.e. 04.02.2013. He further stated that as per the sub-station log book, there was no interruption in power supply on the said lines on the date of the incident and the accident was not reported to his office. In his cross- examination, he admitted that consent and site plan approval had been granted by the Electricity Safety Department and the shifting work was to be completed by 31.12.2012. 14. Further the medical witness, Dr. In his cross- examination, he admitted that consent and site plan approval had been granted by the Electricity Safety Department and the shifting work was to be completed by 31.12.2012. 14. Further the medical witness, Dr. B.N. Devangan (PW-6) deposed that on 05.02.2013, the dead body of Lalit Kumar Chaturvedi was brought before him for post-mortem examination, and the body was identified by the deceased’s brother Suresh Chaturvedi and one other person. He stated that on post-mortem examination, a lacerated wound measuring 2 × ½ cm was found on the posterior region of the head, along with burn marks of electric current on various parts of the body. He opined that the electric burn injuries were within six hours prior to death and the cause of death was shock due to electrocution. The post-mortem report is Ex.P-9. In his cross-examination, nothing was elicited to discredit his opinion regarding death due to electrocution. Thus, his testimony clearly establishes that the death of Lalit Kumar Chaturvedi occurred due to electric shock. 15. Upon a careful re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Lalit Kumar Chaturvedi died due to electrocution at the construction site of Amrapali Vananchal City. The medical evidence of PW-6 conclusively proves that the cause of death was shock due to electric current. The testimony of PW-2, the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Department, clearly establishes that live 11 K.V. overhead electric lines were passing over the under- construction building and that construction activity was continued without shifting the said lines, despite prior permissions, technical sanction and specific directions. It is not in dispute that the responsibility of construction site are with the appellants herein and they were responsible for ensuring safety at the work site and failed to take necessary precautions, thereby resulting in the accidental death of the deceased. Taken together, the aforesaid evidence sufficiently establishes that the death was the result of negligence at the construction site, thereby sustaining the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court. 16. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court insofar as the finding of guilt is concerned. Taken together, the aforesaid evidence sufficiently establishes that the death was the result of negligence at the construction site, thereby sustaining the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court. 16. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court insofar as the finding of guilt is concerned. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC are duly made out, and the conviction of the appellants is based on cogent and reliable evidence. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. 17. The Supreme Court in the matter of George vs. State of Kerala [SLP (Criminal) No. 11041 of 2024] decided on 03/09/2024, held that for conviction under Section 304-A of the IPC, there is no minimum sentence prescribed but the term of sentence may extend to 2 years. The sentence can also be limited to fine without any term of imprisonment. 18. So far as the sentence part is concerned, it is not in dispute that the incident is of the year 2013 and the appellants have faced the ordeal of criminal proceedings for a considerable length of time. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of negligence, the lapse of time, and the ends of justice, this Court is of the considered view that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants deserves to be modified to the period already undergone by them. 19. As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows: "9. Western jurisprudence and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817: "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested: 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817: "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested: 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education. It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub- culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield: "If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences” 20. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 9 SCC 810 has reiterated the above facts and also placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra). 21. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 9 SCC 810 has reiterated the above facts and also placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra). 21. Considering all these above aspects and also considering the fact that during pendency of this appeal the appellant was on bail since 2016; and did not misuse the liberty granted to him and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet , (2009) 13 SCC 478 , and in light of the Supreme Court in cases of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and Pramod Kumar Mishra (supra), this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants back to jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be adequately served, if the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them during trial and incarceration. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants is affirmed, and the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court under Section 304-A IPC is maintained. However, the sentence imposed on the appellants is modified to the period already undergone by them. 23. However, considering the loss suffered by the mother of the deceased, the direction of the trial Court awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each by the appellants to the mother of the deceased is maintained, and in addition thereto, the appellants are further directed to pay an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- each (Rs.50,000 x 6 = Rs.3,00,000/-) to the mother of the deceased as compensation, within a period of seventy five (75) days from the date of this judgment including the amount of fine imposed by the learned trial Court. If the appellants fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period, each of them shall undergo imprisonment for three months. 24. At this juncture, it is informed that pursuant to the impugned judgment the appellants have already paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased towards compensation. The trial Court concerned is directed to verify the said fact. 25. The appellants are reported to be on bail. 24. At this juncture, it is informed that pursuant to the impugned judgment the appellants have already paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the mother of the deceased towards compensation. The trial Court concerned is directed to verify the said fact. 25. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of the BNSS. 26. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.