Supreme Court: In a case wherein an appeal was filed against judgment and order dated 4-5-2023 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby conviction and sentence dated 31-10-2014 of the appellant, Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana (accused) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, was upheld, for facilitating undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt from custody. The Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., stated that the use of a private vehicle associated with the appellant, the involvement of unidentified persons, the stop at scheduled location under false pretext, and the appellant’s inaction during the violent assault despite being in a position of official authority, formed a continuous chain of incriminating circumstances that pointed toward his complicity in the conspiracy.
The Court expressed strongest condemnation of the appellant’s conduct because as a public servant entrusted with safeguarding the rule of law and the custody of prisoners, he did not merely default in his duties, but he actively undermined the justice system. The Court held that the findings of the Sessions Court that were affirmed by the High Court were based on cogent reasoning and unimpeachable evidence and thus dismissed the appeal as it found no mitigating factor to warrant any leniency in sentence.
Background
On 30-11-2010, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Rampura, received information that two Head Constables were admitted to Civil Hospital, Rampura, in an injured condition and upon reaching the hospital, Station House Officer recorded the statement of one of the Head Constables. As per the statement, both the Head Constables were escorting an undertrial prisoner by bus, for court proceedings, and even the appellant accompanied them. After attending the court, the appellant suggested travelling back in a car, belonging to people known to him and despite initial hesitation, the Head Constables later agreed. On reaching near the village, the appellant asked the driver to stop for a while and when the driver slowed down, the two men in the back of the car, threw red chilli powder into the eyes of both the Head Constables. Thereafter, one of them stabbed one of the Head Constable in the shoulder with a knife, while the other struck a kirpan on the head of the other Head Constable.
The assailants attempted to help the prisoner escape; however, failed, as he was handcuffed and chained to the complainant’s belt and on raising an alarm, members of the public gathered, because of which the assailants and the appellant fled. The crime was committed by the prisoner, with the appellant and the two assailants, to facilitate escape from custody and eliminate the escorting officers. Thus, based on the Head Constable’s statement, a FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. After trial, the Sessions Court by judgment dated 31-10-2014, convicted all the accused persons, against which, the appellant filed a criminal appeal, but the same was dismissed by the High Court. Thus, the present appeal was filed before this Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that originally the appellant was not named in the FIR, however, pursuant to the prosecution filing an application under Section 319 CrPC, the appellant was summoned as an accused. The Court opined that the detailed, consistent, and credible testimony of one of the Head Constables clearly implicated the appellant. His deposition established that the appellant facilitated the use of a private vehicle in which the assailants were already present and deliberately planned a stop at a vulnerable location under a false pretext, enabling the assault and escape attempt. Thus, the Court held that the trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 319 CrPC to summon the appellant to face trial.
The Court opined that the offence of criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence, nor was it necessary that all conspirators participated in every stage of the commission of the offence. The existence of a prior agreement, express or implied, to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means, was material. The Court stated that the existence of a prior concert of action between the appellant and the assailants, had been established. The use of a private vehicle associated with the appellant, the involvement of unidentified persons, the stop at scheduled location under false pretext, and the appellant’s inaction during the violent assault despite being in a position of official authority, all formed a continuous chain of incriminating circumstances that pointed toward his complicity in the conspiracy. The Court opined that the appellant’s deliberate inaction, lack of any injuries, and subsequent disappearance from the scene further reinforced the inference of his active role.
The Court opined that the appellant’s conduct was not peripheral but integral to the execution of the plan to facilitate the escape of the undertrial prisoner and his behaviour before, during, and after the incident established his culpability under Section 120-B IPC. Thus, the Court held that his conviction for the substantive offences with the aid of Section 120-B was legally sustainable.
The Court noted that the prosecution case rested substantially on the testimony of the complainant and police escort, whose version remained consistent and unshaken, although another member of the police escort team, corroborated parts of the complainant’s testimony, he turned hostile insofar as identification of the accused persons other than the undertrial prisoner was concerned.
The Court opined that it was a settled proposition of law that the evidence of a prosecution witness was not to be discarded in toto merely because the witness had turned hostile. Thus, the courts were entitled to rely upon any portion of such testimony which was found to be credible and corroborated by other evidence on record. Further, the testimony of a single eyewitness, if found trustworthy and credible, was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
The Court opined that it was clear that the attack on the police escort team was not a spontaneous occurrence, but a carefully orchestrated plan. The appellant was fully aware of the security protocols applicable to undertrial escorts and instead of upholding these procedures, he misused his position and familiarity with the escort personnel to subvert the established norms. He facilitated the use of a private vehicle, allegedly owned by an acquaintance, and persuaded the police officers to board it and he himself occupied the front passenger seat. The Court stated that this was not an innocuous act but indicated prior arrangement and active complicity and thus, the prosecution had rightly characterized the entire incident as a premeditated conspiracy, in which the appellant played a key role.
The Court expressed its strongest condemnation of the appellant’s conduct because as a public servant entrusted with safeguarding the rule of law and the custody of prisoners, he did not merely default in his duties, but he actively undermined the justice system. When public functionaries betray institutional trust, the consequences were profound and far-reaching and in a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, custodial officers must be held to the highest standards of integrity. Any deviation amounted to legal delinquency and a grave institutional and moral breach.
The Court held that findings of the Sessions Court that were affirmed by the High Court were based on cogent reasoning and unimpeachable evidence and thus, the appellant failed to make out any ground for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court after considering the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the appellant, and keeping in view his position as an Assistant Superintendent of Jail, a role that demanded highest standards of integrity, responsibility and adherence to the rule of law, dismissed the appeal and held that it found no mitigating factor to warrant any leniency in sentence.
[Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1669, decided on 11-8-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice R. Mahadevan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Delhi Law Chambers
For the Respondent: Karan Sharma, AOR
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
