Assistant Superintendent of Jail Is Guilty of Conspiracy in Escort Attack; Conviction and Sentences Are Affirmed

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan heard the criminal appeal by Gurdeep Singh, then Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana, challenging his conviction under Sections 307, 332, 353, 186, 225 and 120B IPC arising from an attack on two escorting head constables and an attempted escape of an undertrial prisoner. The appeal questioned the legality of his summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the sufficiency of evidence to prove criminal conspiracy and attempt to murder, and reliance on the testimony of a single injured eyewitness.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the concurrent convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court and the High Court. It held that the trial evidence, particularly the consistent and credible testimony of the injured escort (PW.2), along with medical reports and the chain of incriminating circumstances, sufficiently established a prior concert of action and culpability of the appellant under Section 120B IPC and the substantive offences. The Court upheld the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. despite the earlier preliminary enquiry that had declared the appellant innocent, observing that the police opinion was not binding on the Court. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court directed that the appellant be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment and ordered recovery of the fine in accordance with law.

Background

The prosecution case arose from an incident on 30.11.2010 when Head Constables Harjit Singh (PW.2) and Hardial Singh (PW.1) were escorting undertrial Kuldeep Singh from Ludhiana to Talwandi Sabo. After court proceedings, the appellant allegedly persuaded the escorting officers to travel in a private Qualis (Regn. PB-19C-8750) which he said was headed to Barnala and in which he sat in the front passenger seat. PW.2 stated that, after the vehicle stopped on the pretext of a nature call, two men in the rear threw red chilli powder into the officers’ eyes and assaulted them with a knife and a kirpan while Kuldeep Singh attempted to escape. PW.1 and the driver turned partly hostile at trial; PW.2 remained consistent and injured. Medical evidence recorded simple incised wounds and redness of eyes; the doctor said redness could have other causes but certified fitness to give statements.

The appellant contended that he had been exonerated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in a preliminary inquiry, that no overt act connected him to the attack, and that the prosecution rested on an interested single witness. The State relied on PW.2’s detailed account, the conduct of the appellant before and after the incident, the use of a private vehicle with unknown occupants, and the appellant’s alleged inaction and disappearance from the scene to infer conspiracy. The High Court had earlier affirmed conviction. Relying on precedents including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the Supreme Court held that a person not named in the FIR may be summoned under Section 319 if trial evidence indicates involvement, and that conspiracy may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. The Court noted that “the opinion of the investigating agency is merely tentative and cannot override the Court’s independent judicial assessment based on trial evidence.” The appeal was dismissed; the appellant’s conviction and sentences stood and execution of sentence and recovery of fines were ordered to proceed.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 705 OF 2024 (2025 INSC 957) Case Title: Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]