The Supreme Court of India on August 11, 2025, dismissed an appeal by Gurdeep Singh, an Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana, upholding his conviction and sentence for criminal conspiracy in an attack on police personnel who were escorting an undertrial prisoner. The Court, comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan, affirmed the concurrent findings of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, holding that the appellant played a key role in a premeditated plan to facilitate the prisoner’s escape.
The case centered on whether the appellant, despite not committing any direct violent act, could be held guilty of conspiracy based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s conduct before, during, and after the incident formed an “unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances” proving his complicity.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from an incident on November 30, 2010. Head Constable Harjit Singh (PW.2) and Head Constable Hardial Singh (PW.1) were escorting an undertrial prisoner, Kuldeep Singh @ Deepi, from Ludhiana to Talwandi Sabo for a court hearing. The appellant, Gurdeep Singh, an Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana, also accompanied them.
According to the statement of Head Constable Harjit Singh, after the court proceedings, the appellant suggested they travel back in a private Tata Qualis vehicle, assuring them that the occupants were known to him. The appellant sat in the front seat, while the two head constables and the undertrial prisoner sat in the middle row. Two other men were in the rear seat.
Near the village of Kutiwal, the appellant asked the driver to stop so he could answer a call of nature. As the vehicle slowed down, the two men in the back threw red chilli powder into the eyes of the head constables. One assailant stabbed Head Constable Hardial Singh in the shoulder with a knife, while the other struck Head Constable Harjit Singh on the head with a kirpan. The assailants tried to help Kuldeep Singh escape, but he was handcuffed and chained to the complainant’s belt. When the constables raised an alarm, the two assailants and the appellant fled the scene.
An FIR was registered for offences including attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) and criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC). Initially, a preliminary inquiry by a Deputy Superintendent of Police found the appellant innocent. However, during the trial, based on the evidence of the complainant, the appellant was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).
The Sessions Court, Bathinda, convicted the appellant on October 31, 2014, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for various offences, with the maximum being three years under Sections 307 and 120B of the IPC. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld this decision on May 4, 2023, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Contentions: The appellant’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated and that the prosecution’s case rested solely on the testimony of PW.2, who was an interested witness trying to shield himself from disciplinary action for using a private vehicle. It was highlighted that other material witnesses, including the injured Head Constable Hardial Singh (PW.1) and the vehicle’s driver Balwinder Singh (PW.10), had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s version.
The defence emphasized that no overt act was attributed to the appellant, and his mere presence could not sustain a charge of conspiracy. It was further argued that the initial police inquiry had declared him innocent and he was wrongly summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
State’s Submissions: The counsel for the State of Punjab argued that the conviction was well-founded. It was contended that the appellant, an official of the Jail Department, played an active role by deliberately selecting a vehicle with assailants inside. His instruction to stop the vehicle at a pre-designated spot, his failure to intervene during the assault, and his subsequent disappearance from the scene pointed to his collusion.
The State maintained that there was no motive for the police officials to falsely implicate the appellant, who was their superior officer. The prosecution asserted that the appellant’s overall conduct revealed his “conscious participation in the criminal conspiracy.”
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal arguments. The bench addressed three primary contentions raised by the appellant.
1. On Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C: The Court rejected the argument that the appellant’s initial exoneration by a police inquiry should prevent his trial. Citing the Constitution Bench judgment in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014), the Court affirmed that a trial court’s power to summon an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a judicial function based on evidence emerging during trial, and it is not bound by the opinion of the investigating agency. The judgment in Hardeep Singh clarified the position, 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 Court found that the “detailed, consistent, and credible testimony of PW.2, Harjit Singh,” clearly implicated the appellant, justifying the trial court’s decision to summon him in line with this principle.
2. On Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B IPC): The Court observed that criminal conspiracy is seldom provable by direct evidence and is typically established through circumstantial evidence. It referred to precedents like State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) and Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993), which established that an agreement itself constitutes the offence and every conspirator need not commit an overt act.
Applying this principle, the Court found a “concert of purpose and unity of design.” It held:
“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… all form a continuous chain of incriminating circumstances that point toward his complicity in the conspiracy.”
The Court concluded that the appellant’s conduct was “not peripheral but integral to the execution of the plan” and his conviction with the aid of Section 120B IPC was legally sustainable.
3. On Reliability of Witness Testimony: The Court addressed the issue of hostile witnesses and reliance on a single eyewitness. It noted that while PW.1 turned hostile on the point of identifying the accused (other than Kuldeep Singh), his testimony could still be relied upon in part. Citing Paulmeli v. State of Tamil Nadu (2014), the judgment reiterated the settled law that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be discarded in toto.
Crucially, the Court placed significant weight on the testimony of PW.2, the complainant. Relying on the classic case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (1957), the bench stated that the testimony of a single eyewitness, if found “trustworthy and credible,” is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court found PW.2’s testimony to be of “sterling quality,” consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence. His status as an injured witness further enhanced its reliability.
Court’s Condemnation and Final Decision
In its concluding remarks, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the appellant’s actions, stating:
“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.”
Finding no mitigating factors to warrant leniency, the Court held that the conviction and sentence were commensurate with the appellant’s culpability.
The appeal was dismissed, and the authorities were directed to take the appellant into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining period of his sentence.
