Supreme Court Upholds Punjab Jail Official's Conviction For Helping Undertrial's Escape Attempt

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 attempt 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, 225, 186 and 120B of the IPC.The incident happened in 2008, when an undertrial prisoner was being taken from the court. The appellant suggested to the two police constables, who were accompanying the prisoner, that they travel back in a Toyota Qualis car, the owner of which was stated to be the appellant's acquaintance. During the journey, the car's driver stopped the vehicle on the pretext on answering nature's call. Then, two other persons entered the car, and attacked the police constables after throwing chilli powder into their faces. However, the escape of the prisoner was foiled by the police constables. When a crowd gathered, the assailants and the appellant escaped.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...

Supreme Court Upholds Punjab Jail Official's Conviction For Helping Undertrial's Escape Attempt

Yash Mittal

Tags