Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Central Jail Employee In Conspiracy Case
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of the Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail in a criminal conspiracy case.
A Criminal Appeal was preferred by the accused, challenging the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which upheld the Judgment of conviction rendered by the Fast Track Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan reaffirmed, “… hostile testimony must be carefully sifted – usable portions may be retained, while tainted segments are to be discarded. … a hostile witness’s testimony need not be discarded in its entirety and that the Court must carefully evaluate whether portions of such evidence are credible and corroborated.”
The Bench further reiterated that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if found trustworthy and credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Advocate A.K. Walia represented the Appellant/Accused while Aor karan sharma represented the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
As per the prosecution case, in 2010, the Station House Officer (SHO) received an information that two Head Constables had been admitted to a hospital in an injured condition. Upon reaching the hospital and obtaining medical opinion regarding their fitness to give a statement, the SHO recorded the statement of Head Constable Harjit Singh. According to him, he, along with Head Constable Hardial Singh, was escorting undertrial prisoner Kuldeep Singh @ Deepi from Ludhiana to Talwandi Sabo for Court proceedings in connection with an FIR, by bus. The Appellant-accused (Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana) also accompanied them. After attending Court, while they were waiting at the main gate of the Court complex, the Appellant suggested that they travel back in a Tata Qualis which was parked outside and allegedly belonged to persons known to him. Despite initial hesitation, the Head Constables agreed based on his assurance. The accused sat in the front seat with driver, the Head Constables and prisoner sat in the middle row, while two young men occupied the rear seat.
On reaching near a village, the accused asked the driver to stop for a while to answer the call of nature and when the vehicle was slowed down, the two men in the back allegedly threw red chilli powder into the eyes of Head Constables. One of them stabbed Hardial in the shoulder with a knife while the other picked up a kirpan and struck Harjit on the head. The assailants attempted to help the prisoner escape but failed as he was handcuffed and chained. They fled the spot when public gathered and the injured were then taken to hospital by the driver. Hence, the crime was alleged to have been committed by the prisoner, in connivance with the Appellant and the two unknown assailants, with the intention to facilitate escape from custody and to eliminate the escorting officers. All the accused persons were convicted under Sections 307, 186, 332, 353, 225, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by the Sessions Court. As the High Court upheld the conviction, he approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “In Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, this Court held that if the sole witness is of a sterling quality and inspires confidence, a conviction can be safely based upon such testimony.”
The Court referred to the Judgment in the case of Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2003) in which it was held that if the witness is otherwise reliable and his testimony inspires confidence, a conviction is legally sustainable.
“A similar view was taken in Kuna v. State of Odisha14, where the Court upheld a conviction solely on the basis of a trustworthy eyewitness, emphasizing that credible testimony alone is sufficient in law”it added.
The Court further noted that conviction can rest on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, provided the Court finds it trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence.
“In the present case, although the appellant was not officially assigned to the escort duty undertaken by PW.1 and PW.2 on 30.11.2010, he was admittedly present at the court complex on the relevant day. The partial hostility of PW. 1 regarding the identification of the accused, does not undermine the testimony of PW.2 who remained firm, consistent, and unshaken on all material particulars. His account of the events is further corroborated by medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances. His description of the presence of unknown individuals, the seating arrangement in the vehicle, the appellant’s inexplicable deviation from the designated route, and the subsequent attack by those individuals, is both detailed and coherent. … PW.2’s evidence in the present case satisfies this threshold. His status as an injured witness further enhances the reliability of his version”it said.
The Court also noted that the defence suggestion that victim had a motive to falsely implicate the Appellant is wholly unsubstantiated and in the absence of any evidence of prior enmity or other animus, and considering that the Appellant was victim’s superior officer, the theory of false implication appears inherently implausible.
“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”it remarked.
The Court was of the view that the presence of two unidentified persons already seated in the rear of the vehicle where the undertrial and escort officers were also to be accommodated not only constituted a grave breach of protocol but was inexplicable except by the Appellant’s active connivance.
“At an isolated location, the attack was launched: red chilli powder was thrown, followed by an assault using a knife and a kirpan. Kuldeep Singh attempted to escape and was prevented from doing so only by the handcuffs and the belt secured by the complainant. Throughout the incident, the appellant neither assisted the police escort nor resisted the assailants. He remained uninjured and vanished from the scene of incident thereafter”it said.
Conclusion
The Court observed that the Appellant’s conduct during and after the incident is wholly inconsistent with that of a law-abiding officer and rather, it reveals the mindset of a conspirator attempting to evade accountability.
“The prosecution has rightly characterized the entire episode as a premeditated conspiracy, in which the appellant played a key role. … 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”it remarked.
The Court emphasised that in a Constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, custodial officers must be held to the highest standards of integrity and 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. … 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. The conviction and sentence imposed are commensurate with the appellant’s culpability and call for neither reduction nor interference”it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the conviction.
Cause Title- Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 957)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates AK Walia and Debjani Das Purkayastha.
Respondent: AOR Karan Sharma, Advocates Mohit Siwach, and Chetan Manchanda.