SC Upholds Conviction of Ludhiana Jail Officer in 2010 Escape Plot

The Supreme Court on August 11, 2025, upheld the conviction and sentence of an Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana, for attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy and allied offences in connection with a 2010 abortive attempt to help an undertrial prisoner escape.

Dismissing Singh’s appeal against the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s order of May 4, 2023, which had affirmed his conviction by the ASJ, Bathinda, the bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan directed that he be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining sentence.

The top court delivered a sharp censure of Singh’s conduct, observing,

“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 prosecution case was that on November 30, 2010, Head Constables Harjit Singh and Hardial Singh were escorting undertrial Kuldeep Singh from Ludhiana to Talwandi Sabo for court proceedings.

Gurdeep Singh, though not officially part of the escort detail, travelled with them. After the hearing, he suggested returning in a Tata Qualis parked outside, assuring the constables that the occupants were known to him.

He sat in the front with the driver, the constables and the undertrial occupied the middle row, and two young men took the rear seat. Near village Kutiwal, Singh asked the driver to stop for a call of nature.

As the vehicle slowed, the two rear occupants threw red chilli powder into the constables’ eyes; one stabbed Hardial Singh in the shoulder, and the other struck Harjit Singh on the head with a kirpan. The assailants tried to free the undertrial, but he could not escape as he was handcuffed and chained to Harjit Singh’s belt.

On the alarm being raised, bystanders gathered, prompting the assailants and Gurdeep Singh to flee.

Initially declared innocent in a preliminary police enquiry, Singh was not named in the FIR.

However, during trial, on the strength of Harjit Singh’s detailed and consistent testimony, the Sessions Court summoned him as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.

Upholding the legality of this step, the Supreme Court referred to Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 to reiterate that a court may summon even a person not named in the FIR or charge sheet if evidence recorded during trial indicates involvement; the investigating agency’s earlier opinion cannot override judicial assessment of trial evidence.

Court rejected the defence argument that there was no direct proof of Singh’s participation or a specific overt act.

It emphasised that criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is seldom proved by direct evidence and may be established through circumstantial evidence and patterns of conduct, as recognised in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600, Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 609, and Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI (2009) 8 SCC 1.

Once a prior agreement, express or implied, to commit an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means is established, even by inference, the offence is complete, court said.

In this case, the use of a private vehicle associated with Singh, the presence of unknown persons, the planned halt under a false pretext, his complete inaction during a violent attack despite being in authority, his lack of injuries, and his disappearance from the scene formed a continuous chain of incriminating circumstances pointing to complicity. His conduct was not peripheral but integral to the plan to facilitate the undertrial’s escape.

The bench was unpersuaded by the contention that the case rested mainly on the testimony of a single witness, Harjit Singh, while other key witnesses had turned hostile. Citing Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957 SCR 981), it reiterated that conviction can rest on the testimony of a sole eyewitness if it is credible and trustworthy; the law does not require plurality of witnesses. Court also referred to the principle that a hostile witness’s evidence is not to be discarded in toto, and credible portions may be relied upon if corroborated.

Court concluded that the attack on the escort team was not a spontaneous act but a carefully orchestrated plan, and Singh’s behaviour before, during, and after the incident established culpability under Section 120B IPC.

“The appellant’s conduct during and after the incident is wholly inconsistent with that of a law-abiding officer… The prosecution has rightly characterized the entire episode as a premeditated conspiracy, in which the appellant played a key role,” the bench held, affirming both conviction and sentence.

Case Title: Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab

Date of Judgment: 11 August 2025

Bench: Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan