Supreme Court upholds jail official’s conviction for facilitating undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt

The Supreme Court recently dealt with an appeal arising from the judgment and order dated 4-5-2023 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had upheld the conviction and sentence dated 31-10-2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, against an Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana. The conviction stemmed from his complicity in an undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt.

On 30-11-2010, the Station House Officer of Police Station Rampura received information that two Head Constables had been admitted to Civil Hospital, Rampura, with serious injuries. Their statements revealed that while escorting an undertrial prisoner for court proceedings, they were accompanied by the appellant. After the hearing, the appellant suggested returning in a private car associated with his acquaintances instead of by bus. Initially hesitant, the Head Constables eventually agreed.

As the vehicle neared a village, the appellant directed the driver to stop. Suddenly, two men in the rear seats threw red chilli powder into the escort officers’ eyes. One assailant stabbed a constable with a knife while another struck the other with a kirpan. The attackers attempted to facilitate the undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt, but the plan failed because the prisoner was handcuffed and chained. On hearing the alarm, members of the public gathered, compelling the assailants and the appellant to flee.

An FIR was immediately registered under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Sections 307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120-B, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. After trial, the Sessions Court convicted the accused, including the appellant. His appeal before the High Court was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Evidence and Role of the Appellant in the Undertrial Prisoner’s Escape Attempt

Although the appellant was not initially named in the FIR, he was later summoned under Section 319 CrPC based on compelling testimony. The Court emphasized that the consistent and credible deposition of one of the Head Constables clearly implicated the appellant. His conduct established that he facilitated the use of a private vehicle in which the assailants were already present. He also created a false pretext to halt the car at a vulnerable spot, enabling the assault.

The Court reiterated that the offence of criminal conspiracy does not require direct evidence. It is sufficient to prove an agreement, explicit or implied, to commit an unlawful act. Here, the existence of a prior concert of action was clearly shown. The appellant’s deliberate inaction during the violent attack, his absence of injuries, and his disappearance from the scene confirmed his active involvement in the undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt.

His role was not peripheral but integral. He misused his official authority, persuaded the escort officers to accept the private transport, and ensured the assailants were strategically positioned. The Court concluded that his behaviour before, during, and after the incident pointed directly to complicity under Section 120-B IPC.

Judicial Analysis and Legal Findings

The Court examined whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the conviction. It acknowledged that one escort officer had turned hostile regarding identification of the appellant. However, the consistent testimony of the complainant remained credible and was corroborated by circumstances. The Court reiterated the settled principle that a prosecution witness’s testimony need not be discarded in toto if partly hostile. Courts can rely on credible portions supported by other evidence.

Additionally, the Court clarified that even the testimony of a single eyewitness, if trustworthy, is enough for conviction. Here, the surviving constable’s deposition was detailed, consistent, and credible. It exposed the appellant’s betrayal of duty in orchestrating the undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt.

The Court emphasized that this was not a spontaneous assault but a premeditated conspiracy. The appellant, fully aware of security protocols, subverted them. He manipulated the escort team into boarding a private car instead of an official vehicle. He then occupied the front seat, distancing himself from the attack while enabling the assailants. This was clear proof of active collusion.

Court’s Condemnation and Final Decision

In its judgment, the Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan, JJ., strongly condemned the appellant’s actions. As a public servant entrusted with safeguarding the rule of law and custody of prisoners, he had not merely failed in his duty. He had actively undermined the justice system by collaborating in an undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt.

The Court stressed that when custodial officers betray institutional trust, the consequences are profound. In a constitutional democracy, custodial integrity is paramount. Any deviation amounts to both legal delinquency and moral breach. The appellant’s position as Assistant Superintendent of Jail demanded the highest standards of accountability. His actions represented a grave institutional failure.

Consequently, the Court upheld the findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court, both of which were based on cogent reasoning and unimpeachable evidence. It ruled that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any mitigating factor that could justify leniency in sentencing. Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the principle that public servants who conspire in acts such as an undertrial prisoner’s escape attempt must be held to the highest standards of accountability. The appellant’s calculated betrayal of his official role not only endangered his colleagues but also attempted to subvert the very system of justice he was sworn to protect. By refusing to grant leniency, the Court underscored that custodial officers carry a constitutional responsibility that demands unwavering integrity.

Case details [Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025, SC 1669, decided on 11-8-2025].