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.