Summary and Analysis of Gurdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab

1. Heading of the Judgment

Gurdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab
(Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2024)

(Gurdeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, 2025 INSC 957)

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

The judgment interprets and applies the following legal provisions:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 120B: Criminal conspiracy.
  Section 307: Attempt to murder.
  Section 225: Resistance to lawful apprehension.
  Section 186: Obstructing public servant in discharge of duties.
  Section 332: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant.
  Section 353: Assault to deter public servant from duty.

• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC):
  Section 319: Power to proceed against other persons appearing guilty during trial.

• Evidence Act, 1872:
  Section 134: No particular number of witnesses required for conviction.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Gurdeep Singh (Assistant Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana).
  Respondent: State of Punjab.

• Bench: Justices R. Mahadevan and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

• Date: Decided on August 11, 2025.

• Core Dispute:
  Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 120B, 307, 225, 186, 332, and 353 IPC was legally sustainable based on evidence of criminal conspiracy and attempted escape of an undertrial prisoner.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

A. Factual Background

• Incident (30.11.2010):
  Head Constables Harjit Singh (PW2) and Hardial Singh (PW1) escorted undertrial prisoner Kuldeep Singh from Ludhiana to Talwandi Sabo for court proceedings.
  Appellant Gurdeep Singh (Jail official) accompanied them. After court, he persuaded the constables to return in a private Tata Qualis vehicle (PB-19L-8750) driven by Balwinder Singh (PW10).
  Two unidentified youths occupied the rear seat. Near village Kutiwal, the vehicle stopped at appellant’s request. The youths threw red chilli powder at the constables, stabbed them, and attempted to free Kuldeep Singh.
  The constables raised an alarm; the assailants and appellant fled. Kuldeep Singh (handcuffed) was caught.

• Trial & Conviction:
  Sessions Court (2014) convicted all accused, including the appellant (summoned later under Section 319 CrPC).
  High Court (2023) upheld the conviction.
  Appellant challenged this in the Supreme Court.

B. Appellant’s Arguments

1. False Implication:
   Appellant was exonerated in a preliminary inquiry (DW3, DSP). His summoning under Section 319 CrPC was unjustified.

2. No Proof of Conspiracy:
   No evidence showed prior agreement (Section 120B IPC) between appellant and assailants.
   Mere presence in the vehicle or suggestion to use it ≠ conspiracy.

3. Hostile Witnesses:
   PW1 (injured constable) and PW10 (driver) turned hostile.
   Only PW2’s testimony remained, which was "interested" (to shield himself for violating escort protocols).

4. Section 307 IPC Untenable:
   Injuries were simple; no proof of intent to murder.

C. State’s Arguments

1. Conspiracy Established:
   Appellant facilitated the attack by arranging the vehicle, ensuring assailants were seated, and stopping at a pre-planned spot.

2. Conduct as Evidence:
   Appellant fled unscathed; did not help victims or report the incident.

3. Credibility of PW2:
   Testimony consistent with FIR and medical evidence (PW3).

4. Valid Summoning (Section 319 CrPC):
   Trial evidence (PW2’s deposition) revealed appellant’s role.

D. Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC Valid:
   Citing Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014):
   "A person not named in FIR can be summoned if trial evidence indicates involvement. Court’s power is independent of police investigation."
   PW2’s detailed testimony during trial justified summoning the appellant.
   Preliminary inquiry (DW3) was vague and unreliable.

2. Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) Proved:
   Citing State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) and Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993):
   "Conspiracy is inferred from circumstantial evidence: prior agreement, coordinated acts, and conduct post-incident."
   Key Circumstances:
   Appellant arranged the vehicle with assailants.
   Stopped at isolated spot under false pretext.
   Fled unscathed; did not assist victims.
   Kuldeep Singh referred to assailant "Manna" in appellant’s presence.

3. Hostile Witnesses Do Not Weaken Prosecution:
   Citing Paulmeli v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014):
   "Hostile testimony can be partially relied upon if credible and corroborated."
   PW1 supported the sequence of events but turned hostile in identifying accused. PW10 (driver) fully hostile.
   PW2’s Testimony Deemed Reliable:
   Unshaken in cross-examination.
   Corroborated by medical evidence (PW3) and FIR.
   No motive to falsely implicate a superior officer.

4. Conviction Based on Sole Eyewitness Permissible:
   Citing Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957):
   "Quality, not quantity, of evidence matters. Conviction valid if sole witness is reliable."
   PW2, an injured witness, passed the test of credibility.

5. Section 307 IPC Upheld:
   Attack with knives/kirpan + red chilli powder showed intent to murder. Injuries were non-grievous due to victims’ resistance.

E. Final Ruling

• Conviction Upheld:
  Appellant’s conduct as a public servant (Jail Superintendent) betrayed institutional trust. His actions facilitated a violent escape attempt.
  Sentences to run concurrently: 3 years RI (Section 307/120B) + fines.

• Dismissal of Appeal:
  "No mitigating factors warrant leniency. Appellant’s conduct undermines the rule of law."

• Directions:
  Appellant to surrender immediately.
  Fine recovered; default sentence imposed if unpaid.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed that circumstantial evidence (appellant’s conduct, vehicle arrangement, and post-attack actions) proved criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. Reliance on sole eyewitness testimony (PW2) was justified due to its credibility. The judgment reinforces that public servants who subvert justice face stringent consequences.