New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a former Punjab jail official for conspiring to help an undertrial prisoner escape during a 2010 attack on two escorting policemen.
A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan ruled that the evidence “convincingly established the existence of a prior concert of action” between Gurdeep Singh, then Assistant Superintendent of Ludhiana Central Jail and the assailants.
Gurdeep Singh was sentenced by a Bathinda Fast Track Court in 2014 to rigorous imprisonment of up to three years for offences under Sections 307, 225, 186, 332, 353 and 120B of the IPC. In May 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence.
As per the prosecution, on November 30, 2010, Head Constables Harjit Singh and Hardial Singh were escorting undertrial Kuldeep Singh from Ludhiana to Talwandi Sabo for court proceedings when Gurdeep Singh suggested travelling back in a private Tata Qualis instead of by bus. Near a village, two men in the rear seat allegedly attacked the constables with red chilli powder, a knife, and a kirpan, attempting to free Kuldeep Singh @ Deepi.
In its judgment, the apex court noted that while key witnesses Hardial Singh and the driver turned partially hostile, Harjit Singh, the injured escort officer, gave “detailed, consistent, and credible testimony” directly implicating Gurdeep Singh.
Harjit Singh’s account, it said, was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Rejecting the argument that Gurdeep Singh’s prior exoneration in a police enquiry barred his prosecution, the Justice Narasimha-led Bench placed reliance on the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab case to hold that even a person not named in the FIR or charge sheet can be summoned to face trial if evidence recorded during the course of trial indicates his involvement in the offence.
“The appellant’s prior exoneration during the preliminary investigation cannot invalidate the judicial findings recorded on the basis of substantive trial evidence,” it said.
On the conspiracy charge, the apex court reiterated that such an offence is “seldom capable of being proved by direct evidence” and may be established from circumstantial evidence, conduct, and coordinated acts.
Observing that the prosecution has convincingly established the existence of a prior concert of action between Gurdeep Singh and the assailants, the Justice Narasimha-led Bench said, “The use of a private vehicle associated with the appellant, the involvement of unidentified persons, the stop at a scheduled location under a false pretext, and the appellant’s conspicuous inaction during the violent assault — despite being in a position of official authority — all form a continuous chain of incriminating circumstances that point toward his complicity in the conspiracy.”
The apex court rejected the defence’s contention that no overt act was attributed to Gurdeep Singh.
Referring to a bunch of precedents, the Justice Narasimha-led Bench said, “Every conspirator need not commit an overt act to be held liable; the agreement itself constitutes the offence.”
It further said that even though some witnesses turned hostile, “a hostile witness’s testimony need not be discarded in its entirety,” and a court may rely on the credible portions.
Concluding that Gurdeep Singh’s “behaviour before, during, and after the incident establishes his culpability under Section 120B IPC,” the Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the courts below.
“His deliberate inaction, lack of any injuries, and subsequent disappearance from the scene further reinforce the inference of his active role. The appellant’s conduct was not peripheral but integral to the execution of the plan to facilitate the escape of the undertrial Kuldeep Singh,” it observed, dismissing Gurdeep Singh’s appeal.
“Considering the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the appellant, and more so, keeping in view his position as an Assistant Superintendent of Jail — a role that demands the highest standards of integrity, responsibility and adherence to the rule of law — this Court finds no mitigating factor to warrant any leniency in sentence. [T]he appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith, to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment,” added the top court.
(IANS)
