Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the concurrent conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and the High Court. The Court maintained the findings for offences including Section 307 read with Section 120B IPC, directed that the sentences run as awarded, and ordered that the appellant be taken into custody to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment and default sentence in accordance with law. The Bench further directed the concerned authorities to ensure immediate execution of the sentence, closed all pending applications, and made no order as to costs.

The appeal arose from a judgment dated 04 May 2023 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh upholding the conviction and sentence dated 31 October 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda, in Sessions Case No. 55 of 10.09.2011. The appellant stood convicted for offences under Sections 307 read with 120B IPC (rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of ₹2,000 and a corresponding default term), Section 225 read with 120B IPC (rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of ₹500 and default term), Section 186 read with 120B IPC (rigorous imprisonment for two months with a fine of ₹200 and default term), Section 332 read with 120B IPC (rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of ₹1,500 and default term), Section 353 read with 120B IPC (rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years with a fine of ₹1,000 and default term), and Section 120B IPC (rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of ₹2,000 and default term). All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Suspension Of Rape Convict’s Sentence | Says High Court's Reasoning Falls Far Short Of S. 389 CrPC Standards | Fair Chance Of Acquittal A Must For Bail

According to the prosecution, on 30 November 2010, two Head Constables—Harjit Singh (PW-2) and Hardial Singh (PW-1)—were escorting an undertrial prisoner, Kuldeep Singh @ Deepi, from Ludhiana to Talwandi Sabo by bus for court proceedings. The appellant, then an Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana, travelled with them. After the hearing, while the police escorts waited at the court complex gate, the appellant proposed a return in a Tata Qualis (Regn. No. PB-19C-8750/PB-19L-8750 as referenced in testimonies), stating the occupants were known to him and headed toward Barnala. The escort officers agreed. The appellant sat in the front passenger seat; PW-1, PW-2, and the undertrial occupied the middle seat; two unidentified young men sat at the rear. Near village Kutianwali/Dhadda, the vehicle was stopped at the appellant’s request for a “call of nature,” whereupon the rear occupants allegedly threw red chilli powder into the eyes of PW-1 and PW-2, stabbed PW-1 with a knife, and struck PW-2 with a kirpan. The assailants attempted to free the undertrial, who could not escape because he was handcuffed and chained to PW-2’s belt. Members of the public gathered, and the two assailants and the appellant fled; PW-1 and PW-2 were taken to Civil Hospital, Rampura, by the driver, Balwinder Singh (PW-10).

Based on PW-2’s statement, FIR No. 65 of 2010 was registered for offences under Sections 307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. During the preliminary inquiry on 03 January 2011, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Maur, opined that the appellant was not involved. The case against Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh was committed to the Sessions Court on 27 August 2011, and charges were framed under Sections 307, 186, 332, 353, 225, and 120B IPC.

During trial, on an application under Section 319 CrPC, the appellant was summoned as an additional accused by order dated 06 July 2012; his case was committed to the Sessions Court on 26 March 2014. He pleaded innocence. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and produced documentary and material exhibits; the defence examined DW-1 to DW-3 and produced Exhibits D1 to D4. The Sessions Court convicted all accused; the High Court dismissed the appeals on 04 May 2023.

Regarding the evidence, PW-1 testified that the appellant suggested travelling in the Qualis, sat in front, and asked the driver to stop; when the vehicle halted, chilli powder was thrown and PW-1 was stabbed, while PW-2 was struck with a kirpan. On alarm, the appellant and the assailants fled; the undertrial could not escape due to restraints. PW-1 was declared hostile to the extent he did not identify the other assailants beyond Kuldeep Singh.

PW-2 deposed that the appellant met them at the court gate, insisted they return in the Qualis, took the front seat, conversed with the undertrial, and referred to one rear occupant as “Manna.” After passing village Kutianwali, the appellant asked to stop; immediately, chilli powder was thrown into the officers’ eyes, a knife blow was inflicted on PW-1’s shoulder, and a kirpan blow on PW-2’s forehead (partly deflected by his carbine). The appellant and the two assailants fled; the driver transported the injured to hospital while the undertrial remained because the attempt to free him failed. PW-2 consistently stated the episode resulted from a conspiracy between the undertrial and the appellant to facilitate escape from custody.

PW-3 (Dr. R.P. Singh), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rampura, found on PW-1 an incised wound (1½ cm × ½ cm) on the back below the neck and redness in both eyes; on PW-2, an incised wound (1 cm × ½ cm) on the forehead, an abrasion on the left elbow, and redness in both eyes. All injuries were simple; the sharp injuries were consistent with sharp weapons; redness of eyes could occur due to multiple causes; no specific contents of chilli powder were detected. Both injured were certified fit to make statements.

PW-5 produced transport records showing the Qualis (PB-19C-8750) had its registration transferred on 29 January 2009 to Karamjit Kaur, W/o Kuldeep Singh, resident of Ward No. 16, Barnala.

PW-7, the Investigating Officer, detailed the registration of FIR on the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, the seizure of blood-stained clothes, the arrest of Kuldeep Singh @ Deepi, recovery of the Qualis, site sketch, arrest of Baldev Singh on 23 February 2011, and production by PW-2 of a carbine with 35 cartridges, a handcuff, and the custody warrant pertaining to Kuldeep Singh on the same day.

PW-10, the driver, stated two Sikh men hired his vehicle at about 11:30 a.m. and denied knowledge of the incident; he was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution despite cross-examination.

DW-1 produced the notice to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ludhiana, regarding production of the undertrial. DW-2 produced the DSP Maur’s inquiry report dated 03 January 2011 opining the appellant’s innocence, though he had no personal knowledge. DW-3 (DSP) deposed that, upon inquiry, he found the appellant innocent, saying the appellant neither attacked the police party nor had any connection with the accused persons, and that the appellant attended court pursuant to notice; in cross-examination, he could not recall the date and time he visited the spot.

The appellant’s submissions in appeal asserted false implication; argued absence of overt act and lack of reliable evidence of conspiracy; highlighted hostility of PW-1 (in part) and PW-10; contested the Section 307 charge, citing simple injuries and lack of medical corroboration for chilli powder; relied on the DSP’s preliminary report; challenged the Section 319 summoning order; and pointed to alleged mischaracterization of his status as a police supervisory officer instead of a jail official, with consequences to service benefits.

The State responded that the conviction was supported by cumulative oral and circumstantial evidence; the appellant selected a vehicle that enabled the assailants’ attack, stopped at a pre-designated spot, suffered no injuries, absconded without assisting the injured or reporting to authorities, and did not make a statement or examine independent witnesses; overall conduct indicated conscious participation in a conspiracy to free the undertrial. The State also submitted that the Section 307 ingredients were attracted by the nature of the assault and the use of weapons and chilli powder, and that summoning under Section 319 CrPC was lawful on the strength of trial testimony.

Addressing the contention based on the preliminary exoneration, the Court referred to the Constitution Bench in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab on the scope of Section 319 CrPC, stating: “A person not named in the FIR or a person though named in the FIR but has not been charge sheeted or a person who has been discharged can be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. provided from the evidence it appears that such person can be tried along with the accused already facing trial.” The Bench further recorded: “the degree of satisfaction that will be required for summoning a person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. would be the same as for framing a charge.”

On the stage and nature of “evidence” under Section 319, the judgment quoted: “the word ‘evidence’ in Section 319 Cr.P.C. has to be broadly understood and not literally i.e. as evidence brought during a trial,” and “the Court need not wait for the evidence against the accused proposed to be summoned to be tested by cross-examination.”

Turning to criminal conspiracy, the Court recorded the principle that conspiracies are ordinarily proved by circumstances and conduct. Quoting State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the judgment stated: “Mostly, conspiracies are proved by circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair… the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible.”

Citing Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India, the Bench reproduced: “for an offence under Section 120-B IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication… it is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy.”

Drawing from Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI, the judgment recorded: “Criminal conspiracy is an independent offence… It is now, however, well settled that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy. The court… may take into consideration the circumstantial evidence… meeting of the minds is essential; mere knowledge or discussion would not be.”

On hostile witnesses, the Court stated the settled rule that their evidence is not to be discarded in toto. Extracting Paulmeli v. State of Tamil Nadu, it recorded: “It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile… the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.”

Referring to Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court quoted: “merely because the witnesses turn hostile does not necessarily mean that their evidence has to be thrown out entirely… It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff.” It further recorded: “The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India… The evidence has to be sifted with care.”

On reliance on a single eyewitness, the judgment drew on Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras: “no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact… Evidence has to be weighed and not counted… If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof.”

Continuing the quotation from Vadivelu Thevar, the Court set out the classic categorization—“(1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.”—and stated that where testimony is reliable, “it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony.”

The Court also referred to Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan and reiterated the legislative recognition that quality of evidence, not quantity, is determinative: “It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability… There can be no hard-and-fast rule that the names of all witnesses… should be indicated in the FIR.”

The judgment then synthesized these principles with the record, noting that PW-1 turned hostile in part and PW-10 fully hostile, but the prosecution case “primarily hinges on the testimony of PW.2, the complainant and injured escort officer.” It recorded that reliance on credible portions of testimony is permissible and that the consistent, corroborated account of PW-2—together with medical evidence and surrounding circumstances—met the threshold for sustaining the conviction.

Addressing the challenge to the Section 319 CrPC summoning order, the Court applied Hardeep Singh and recorded that prior investigative exoneration is tentative and cannot override the court’s assessment on trial evidence: “the opinion of the investigating agency is merely tentative and cannot override the Court’s independent judicial assessment based on trial evidence.”

The Bench then set out its findings on conspiracy and conduct, stating that a chain of circumstances was established: the appellant’s facilitation of a private vehicle associated with persons known to him; the presence of unidentified occupants; the stop at a vulnerable location under a false pretext; the appellant’s conspicuous inaction during the assault; absence of injuries on the appellant; and his disappearance from the scene. These circumstances, read cumulatively, supported the inference of prior meeting of minds and participation in the plan to enable an escape attempt.

Concluding the matter, the Court issued clear directions. It declared: “Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.”

The Bench then ordered immediate custody and execution of the sentence: “The appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith, to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment as per the sentence awarded by the Sessions Court, as affirmed by the High Court.”

To ensure prompt compliance, the Court directed: “The concerned authorities are directed to ensure the immediate execution of the sentence as per law.”

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Slams WBJEE Board | Says Categorical “No” And Orders 2025 Merit List Redrawn To Enforce OBC Reservation Ruling

Addressing the default component attached to fines, the Court specified: “The default sentence in respect of non-payment of fine shall operate in accordance with law.”

On ancillary matters, it recorded: “Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.” The Bench also stated: “There shall be no order as to costs.”

These directions, read with the earlier portion of the judgment setting out the trial court’s sentence and the High Court’s affirmation, preserve the concurrent findings: the sentences for the offences (under Sections 307/120B, 225/120B, 186/120B, 332/120B, 353/120B, and 120B IPC) stand as imposed, to run concurrently, with specified fines and default terms, and are to be executed forthwith upon the appellant’s custody in terms of the Court’s order.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Appellant(s): M/S. Delhi Law Chambers, AOR Mr. A K Walia, Adv. Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, Adv. 

For Respondent(s): Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv. Mr. Chetan Manchanda, Adv.

Case Title: Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 957

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2024

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Justice R. Mahadevan