Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Observing that the custodial officers must be held to the highest standards of integrity, the Supreme Court on Monday (Aug. 11) upheld the conviction of a Punjab Jail Official for his role in a criminal conspiracy to facilitate the escape of an undertrial prisoner and assault on police officers.

Condemning the Appellant's conduct, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan refused to interfere with the conviction, citing the Appellant's demonstrated role in helping with the escape of the prisoners. The Court noted that the appellant, as a jail superintendent, was expected to uphold security protocols but instead facilitated a breach.

“This Court is compelled to express its strongest condemnation of the appellant's conduct. As a public servant entrusted with safeguarding the rule of law and the custody of prisoners, he did not merely default in his duties – he actively undermined the justice system. When public functionaries betray the institutional trust, the consequences are profound and far-reaching. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, custodial officers must be held to the highest standards of integrity. Any deviation amounts not only to legal delinquency, but to a grave institutional and moral breach. The findings recorded by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court are based on cogent reasoning and unimpeachable evidence. The appellant has failed to make out any ground for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.”, the court said.

The Appellant, an Assistant Jail Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana, was convicted and sentenced to concurrent terms, including three years' imprisonment under Sections 307 and 120B of the IPC for aiding the escape of the prisoners, while they were en route to Jail from the Court.

Affirming the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Mahadevan observed that the Appellant's conduct of arranging a private vehicle, enabling the presence of armed assailants, and failing to intervene during the attack indicated prior agreement to facilitate the escape. For criminal conspiracy, the court said that it is not essential that an overt act must be committed, but it can also be established through circumstantial evidence.

“Thus, it is crystal clear that the offence of criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence, nor is it necessary that all conspirators participate in every stage of the commission of the offence. What is material is the existence of a prior agreement – express or implied – to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means. Once such agreement is established, even by way of inference from circumstantial evidence, the legal consequences under Section 120B IPC 28 follow.”, the court said.

Applying the law, the Court observed:

“In the present case, the prosecution has convincingly established the existence of a prior concert of action between the appellant and the assailants. 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. 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. His behaviour before, during, and after the incident establishes his culpability under section 120B IPC. Accordingly, his conviction for the substantive offences with the aid of Section 120B IPC is legally sustainable.”

“Thus, the prosecution evidence clearly demonstrates that the attack on the police escort team was not a spontaneous occurrence, but a carefully orchestrated plan. The appellant, holding the post of Assistant Superintendent of Jail, was fully aware of the security protocols applicable to undertrial escorts. 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 – himself occupying the front passenger seat. This was not an innocuous act but indicated prior arrangement and active complicity.”, the court added.

Noting that the position of the Appellant demanded the highest standard of integrity, responsibility, and adherence to the rule of law, the Court was also not inclined to grant the benefit of sentence reduction as no mitigating circumstances existed.

“The conviction and sentence imposed are commensurate with the appellant's culpability and call for neither reduction nor interference.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal failed and was hereby dismissed.

Cause Title: GURDEEP SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 789

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. A K Walia, Adv. Mr. Divyadeep Walia, Adv. Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Adv. M/S. Delhi Law Chambers, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv.