Gurdeep Singh VS State Of Punjab
(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.307, S.332— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.319— Attempt to murder – Conviction for – Challenge on the ground that summoning as additional accused was illegal – Crime was alleged to have been committed by undertrial prisoner in connivance with accused who was Assistant Superintendent of Jail and two unknown assailants, with intention to facilitate escape from custody and to eliminate escorting officers – Plea of accused that he was declared innocent during preliminary investigation and his summoning as additional accused u/S. 319 Cr P C was illegal – Detailed, consistent, and credible testimony of Head Constable, injured escort officer, clearly implicated accused – Deposition of said witness categorically established that accused facilitated use of private vehicle in which assailants were already present and deliberately orchestrated stop at vulnerable location, thereby enabling assault and attempt to escape – In light of direct and incriminating evidence, Trial court had summoned accused by exercising its jurisdiction u/S. 319 of Cr.P.C. – Prior exoneration of accused during preliminary investigation would not invalidate judicial findings recorded on basis of substantive trial evidence – Deposition of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who conducted preliminary inquiry did not disclose date, time or precise details of spot inspection, thereby casting doubt on thoroughness and credibility of investigation – Plea was unsustainable.
AIR 2014 SC 1400-Relied on(Paras16.116.2)
(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.120B— Criminal conspiracy – Appreciation of evidence – Crime was alleged to have been committed by undertrial prisoner in connivance with accused who was Assistant Superintendent of Jail and two unknown assailants, with intention to facilitate escape from custody and to eliminate escorting officers – Once an agreement to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means is established, even by way of inference from circumstantial evidence, legal consequences u/s 120B IPC follow – Existence of prior concert of action between accused and assailants was established – Use of private vehicle associated with accused, involvement of unidentified persons, stop under false pretext, and conspicuous inaction of accused during violent assault, despite being in position of official authority, formed continuous chain of incriminating circumstances pointing toward his complicity in conspiracy – Deliberate inaction of accused, lack of any injuries and subsequent disappearance from scene further reinforced inference of his active role – Conduct of accused was not peripheral but integral to execution of plan to facilitate escape of undertrial – Conviction was proper.
2009 AIR SCW 5709-Relied onAIR 2005 SC 3820-Relied on(Para17.4)
(C) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.307, S.332, S.120B— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— Attempt to murder – Appreciation of evidence – Crime was alleged to have been committed by undertrial prisoner in connivance with accused and two unknown assailants, with intention to facilitate escape from custody and to eliminate escorting officers – Prosecution case rested substantially on testimony of Head Constable whose version remained consistent and unshaken – Although accused was not officially assigned to escort duty undertaken by Head Constables on relevant date, he was admittedly present at court complex – Prosecution evidence clearly demonstrated that attack on police escort team was not spontaneous occurrence, but carefully orchestrated plan – Accused holding post of Assistant Superintendent of Jail, was fully aware of security protocols – Instead of upholding these procedures, he misused his position and familiarity with escort personnel to subvert established norms – Throughout incident, accused neither assisted police escort nor resisted assailants – Accused remained uninjured and vanished from scene of incident thereafter – Considering nature and gravity of offence committed by accused, and keeping in view his position as an Assistant Superintendent of Jail, role that demands highest standards of integrity, responsibility and adherence to rule of law, Court found no mitigating factor to warrant any leniency in sentence – Conviction and sentence were upheld.
CRA-S-4900-SB-2014 D/- 04.05.2023 (P and H)-Affirmed2014 AIR SCW 3634-Relied onAIR 2003 SC 3590-Relied on(Paras1818.71919.121)
