# Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 957
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-08-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2024
- **Bench:** Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/gurdeep-singh-v-the-state-of-punjab-38534
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Issue arose whether the order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant for the offences u/ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B
IPC and s.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the courts below was
legally sustainable.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B - Arms
Act, 1959 - Criminal conspiracy - Prosecution case that Head
Constables-PW 1 and PW 2 escorted undertrial prisoner from
one place to another for the court proceedings - AppellantJail official accompanied them, and after court, suggested
the constables to return in a private vehicle driven by PW 10,
who was known to him - They all sat in the vehicle along with
the two unidentified youths who occupied the rear seat and
when the vehicle stopped, the youths threw red chilli powder
at the constables, stabbed them, and attempted to help the
undertrial to escape, however he failed as was handcuffed -
Alarm raised, the appellant and the two youths fled and the
prisoner was caught - Trial court convicted and sentenced
all accused, including the appellant who was summoned later
u/s.319 CrPC, for the offences u/ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186,
and 120B and s.25 of the 1959 Act - High Court upheld the
said order - Interference with:
Held: Conviction and sentence imposed commensurate with
the appellant's culpability and call for neither reduction nor
interference - Findings recorded by the courts below based on
cogent reasoning and unimpeachable evidence - Considering the
nature and gravity of the offence committed by the appellant, and
more so, keeping in view his position as Assistant Superintendent
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
691
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
of Jail, a role that demands the highest standards of integrity,
responsibility and adherence to the rule of law, thus, no mitigating
factor to warrant any leniency in sentence - Detailed, consistent,
and credible testimony of the head constable-injured escort
officer, clearly implicates the appellant - In light of this direct
and incriminating evidence, the trial court rightly exercised its
jurisdiction u/s.319 Cr.P.C to summon the appellant - Prosecution
convincingly established the existence of a prior concert of action
between the appellant and the assailants - All incidents form a
continuous chain of incriminating circumstances that point toward
his complicity in the conspiracy - Appellant's conduct was not
peripheral but integral to the execution of the plan to facilitate
the escape of the undertrial - His behaviour before, during, and
after the incident establishes his culpability u/s.120B, thus, his
conviction for the substantive offences with the aid of s.120B
legally sustainable - Partial hostility of PW 1 regarding the
identification of the accused, does not undermine the testimony of
PW 2 who remained firm, consistent, and unshaken on all material
particulars - His account of the events further corroborated by
medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances - His status
as injured witness further enhances the reliability of his version -
In the absence of any evidence of prior enmity or other animus,
and the appellant being PW.2's superior officer, theory of false
implication appears inherently implausible - Prosecution evidence
clearly demonstrates that the attack on the police escort team
was not a spontaneous occurrence, but a carefully orchestrated
plan - Appellant's conduct during and after the incident wholly
inconsistent with that of a law-abiding officer, rather, reveals the
mindset of a conspirator attempting to evade accountability -
Prosecution rightly characterized entire episode as premeditated
conspiracy, in which appellant played a key role. [Paras 16.1,
16.2, 17.4, 18.7, 18.8, 19-21]
Police - Police/Jail Officials - Accountability - Elucidation -
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 inte

## Text

_Characters 0–39,695 of 81,559. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39695 for what follows._

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 690 : 2025 INSC 957
Gurdeep Singh
v.
The State of Punjab
(Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2024)
11 August 2025
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the order of conviction and sentence of the
appellant for the offences u/ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B
IPC and s.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the courts below was
legally sustainable.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B - Arms
Act, 1959 - Criminal conspiracy - Prosecution case that Head
Constables-PW 1 and PW 2 escorted undertrial prisoner from
one place to another for the court proceedings - AppellantJail official accompanied them, and after court, suggested
the constables to return in a private vehicle driven by PW 10,
who was known to him - They all sat in the vehicle along with
the two unidentified youths who occupied the rear seat and
when the vehicle stopped, the youths threw red chilli powder
at the constables, stabbed them, and attempted to help the
undertrial to escape, however he failed as was handcuffed -
Alarm raised, the appellant and the two youths fled and the
prisoner was caught - Trial court convicted and sentenced
all accused, including the appellant who was summoned later
u/s.319 CrPC, for the offences u/ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186,
and 120B and s.25 of the 1959 Act - High Court upheld the
said order - Interference with:
Held: Conviction and sentence imposed commensurate with
the appellant's culpability and call for neither reduction nor
interference - Findings recorded by the courts below based on
cogent reasoning and unimpeachable evidence - Considering the
nature and gravity of the offence committed by the appellant, and
more so, keeping in view his position as Assistant Superintendent
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
691
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
of Jail, a role that demands the highest standards of integrity,
responsibility and adherence to the rule of law, thus, no mitigating
factor to warrant any leniency in sentence - Detailed, consistent,
and credible testimony of the head constable-injured escort
officer, clearly implicates the appellant - In light of this direct
and incriminating evidence, the trial court rightly exercised its
jurisdiction u/s.319 Cr.P.C to summon the appellant - Prosecution
convincingly established the existence of a prior concert of action
between the appellant and the assailants - All incidents form a
continuous chain of incriminating circumstances that point toward
his complicity in the conspiracy - Appellant's conduct was not
peripheral but integral to the execution of the plan to facilitate
the escape of the undertrial - His behaviour before, during, and
after the incident establishes his culpability u/s.120B, thus, his
conviction for the substantive offences with the aid of s.120B
legally sustainable - Partial hostility of PW 1 regarding the
identification of the accused, does not undermine the testimony of
PW 2 who remained firm, consistent, and unshaken on all material
particulars - His account of the events further corroborated by
medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances - His status
as injured witness further enhances the reliability of his version -
In the absence of any evidence of prior enmity or other animus,
and the appellant being PW.2's superior officer, theory of false
implication appears inherently implausible - Prosecution evidence
clearly demonstrates that the attack on the police escort team
was not a spontaneous occurrence, but a carefully orchestrated
plan - Appellant's conduct during and after the incident wholly
inconsistent with that of a law-abiding officer, rather, reveals the
mindset of a conspirator attempting to evade accountability -
Prosecution rightly characterized entire episode as premeditated
conspiracy, in which appellant played a key role. [Paras 16.1,
16.2, 17.4, 18.7, 18.8, 19-21]
Police - Police/Jail Officials - Accountability - Elucidation -
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 -
Role of the police/jail official demands the highest standards
of integrity, responsibility and adherence to the rule of law -
Any deviation amounts not only to legal delinquency, but to
a grave institutional and moral breach. [Para 20]
692
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab [2014] 2 SCR 1 : (2014) 3 SCC
92; State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu [2005] Supp. 2 SCR
79 : (2005) 11 SC 600; Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India [1993] 3
SCR 543 : (1993) 3 SCC 609; Sudhir Shantilal Mehta v. CBI [2009]
12 SCR 682 : (2009) 8 SCC 1; Paulmeli v. State of Tamil Nadu
[2014] 6 SCR 420 : (2014) 13 SCC 90; Rajesh Yadav v. State of
UP [2022] 16 SCR 967 : (2022) 12 SCC 200; Goverdhan v. State
of Chhattisgarh [2025] 1 SCR 657 : (2025) 3 SCC 378; Vadivelu
Thevar v. State of Madras [1957] 1 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614 :
1957 Cri LJ 1000; Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan [2003] Supp.
1 SCR 633 : (2003) 6 SCC 397; Kuna v. State of Odisha [2017]
11 SCR 179 : (2018) 1 SCC 296 - referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Criminal conspiracy; Undertrial prisoner; Court proceedings;
Constables; Unidentified youths Handcuffed; Summon; Testimony;
Preliminary investigation; Continuous chain of incriminating
circumstances; Identification of the accused; Medical evidence;
Injured witness; Rule of law; Custody of prisoners; Assistant
Superintendent of Jail; Jail officials; Institutional trust; Constitutional
democracy; Custodial officers; Highest standards of integrity; Legal
delinquency; Grave institutional and moral breach.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
705 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2023 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRAS No. 4900 of 2014
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
A K Walia, Divyadeep Walia, Ms. Debjani Das Purkayastha, Rajiv
Kataria, M/S. Delhi Law Chambers.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Karan Sharma, Mohit Siwach.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
693
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
R. Mahadevan, J.
1.
This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
04.05.2023 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh1 in CRA-S-4900-SB-2014, whereby the High Court upheld
the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.10.2014 rendered
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda2, in
S.C. No. 55 of 10.09.2011, against the appellant / accused. The
particulars of the conviction and sentence are as under:
Offence for which
convicted
Sentence awarded
Section 307 r/w Section
120B IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for three years
and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to
undergo further RI for two months
Section 225 r/w Section
120B IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and
a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo
further RI for two weeks
Section 186 r/w Section
120B IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for two months
and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to
undergo further RI for one week
Section 332 r/w Section
120B IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and
a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default to undergo
further RI for one and half months
Section 353 r/w Section
120B IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for one and half
years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default
to undergo further RI for one month
Section 120B IPC
Rigorous Imprisonment for three years
and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to
undergo further RI for two months
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
1
Hereinafter referred to as "the High Court"
2
For short, "the Sessions Court"
694
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2.
The case of the prosecution is that on 30.11.2010, the Station House
Officer, Police Station City Rampura, received information that Head
Constables Harjit Singh (PW.2) and Hardial Singh (PW.1) had been
admitted to Civil Hospital, Rampura, in an injured condition. Upon
reaching the hospital and obtaining medical opinion, regarding their
fitness to give a statement, the Station House Officer recorded the
statement of Head Constable Harjit Singh.
2.1. According to Head Constable Harjit Singh, on that day, he,
along with Head Constable Hardial Singh, was escorting
undertrial prisoner Kuldeep Singh @ Deepi from Ludhiana to
Talwandi Sabo for court proceedings in connection with FIR
No. 59 dated 31.05.2008 by bus. The appellant, Gurdeep
Singh, Assistant Superintendent of Central Jail, Ludhiana,
also accompanied them. After attending court, while they were
waiting at the main gate of the court complex, the appellant
suggested that they travel back in a Tata Qualis bearing
Registration No. PB-19L-8750 which was parked outside and
allegedly belonged to persons known to him from Barnala.
Despite initial hesitation, the Head Constables agreed based
on his assurance. The appellant sat in the front seat with the
driver; the two Head Constables and accused Kuldeep Singh
sat in the middle row, while two young men (aged around
20 - 25 years) occupied the rear seat. On reaching near village
Kutiwal, the appellant asked the driver to stop for a while to
answer the call of nature. When the driver slowed down the
vehicle, the two men in the back, threw red chilli powder into
the eyes of the Head Constables. One of them then stabbed
Head Constable Hardial Singh in the shoulder with a knife,
while the other picked up a kirpan and struck Harjit Singh on
the head. Harjit Singh attempted to defend himself with his
carbine, but was still injured. The assailants attempted to help
the accused Kuldeep Singh escape; however, he failed, as
he was handcuffed and chained to the complainant's belt. On
raising an alarm, members of the public gathered, causing the
two assailants and the appellant to flee. The injured were then
taken to Civil Hospital, Rampura, by the driver of the vehicle,
Balwinder Singh (PW.10). Accordingly, the crime was alleged
to have been committed by Kuldeep Singh, in connivance
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
695
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
with the appellant and the two unknown assailants, with the
intention to facilitate escape from custody and to eliminate the
escorting officers.
3.
Based on the statement given by Head Constable Harjit Singh, FIR
No. 65 of 2010 was registered for the offences under sections 307,
353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18603 and
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Accused Maan Singh @ Mana
was declared a proclaimed offender on 22.04.2011. At the stage
of preliminary investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Circle Maur, in his enquiry report dated 03.01.2011, declared the
appellant innocent. Subsequently, the case against the accused
Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh, was committed to the Sessions
Court, vide order dated 27.08.2011. After committal, charges were
framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 307,
186, 332, 353, 225 and 120B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
4.
During trial, on an application moved by the prosecution under
Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19734 the appellant was
summoned as an additional accused, as per order dated 06.07.2012,
and his case was committed to the Sessions Court on 26.03.2014.
He also pleaded innocence and alleged false implication.
5.
The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and marked
exhibits and material objects collected during the course of
investigation. On the side of the defence, DW1 to DW3 witnesses
were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 documents were marked. After
trial, the Sessions Court by judgment dated 31.10.2014, convicted
all the accused and sentenced them for the offences as referred
to above.
6.
Challenging the aforesaid judgment, the appellant filed Criminal
Appeal No. S-4900-SB-2014 which was dismissed by the High
Court, along with the appeal preferred by the accused Baldev Singh
@ Dev, by the judgment dated 04.05.2023. Feeling aggrieved, the
appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.
3
For short, "IPC"
4
For short, "Cr.P.C"
696
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.
The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the concurrent findings
of conviction recorded by both the Sessions Court and the High
Court as being legally unsustainable and factually erroneous. It was
contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated without
any cogent or reliable evidence connecting him either to the alleged
occurrence or to the alleged conspiracy with the co-accused.
7.1. It was submitted that the entire prosecution case rested
solely on the testimony of PW.2, the complainant, who was
admittedly an interested witness. In his cross-examination,
PW.2 admitted that as per police rules, he was not permitted
to escort an undertrial prisoner in a private vehicle, and that
disciplinary action was liable to be taken against him for this
lapse. Therefore, in an attempt to shield himself, he allegedly
twisted the version and shifted the blame onto the appellant
by claiming that it was on the appellant's suggestion that they
boarded the said vehicle.
7.1.1. Furthermore, the other two material witnesses - PW.1
(Hardial Singh), the escorting officer, and PW.10
(Balwinder Singh), the vehicle driver - were declared
hostile and did not support the prosecution's case.
In particular, PW.10 who was present throughout
the alleged occurrence, completely resiled from his
earlier statement, thereby casting serious doubt on the
prosecution version.
7.2. The learned counsel emphasized that no overt act was attributed
to the appellant. The sole allegation was that he had suggested
to use a particular vehicle for convenience. There was no
evidence to show that the appellant had either facilitated the
presence of the assailants in the vehicle or had participated in
any act of violence. No injury was attributed to him. His mere
presence at the scene, without any criminal conduct or prior
meeting of minds with the assailants, cannot sustain a charge
of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
7.3. It was further submitted that there was no reliable, sufficient,
or legal evidence to support the charge of criminal conspiracy
against the appellant. The case was based purely on conjecture
and surmise, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
697
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
Consequently, the conviction under section 120 B IPC is liable to
be set aside and the conviction for other offences based solely
on the application of Section 120B IPC is also unsustainable.
7.4. The learned counsel also submitted that the charge under
Section 307 IPC was wholly untenable, particularly in the
absence of any injury being declared grievous or dangerous
to life. The theory of red chilli powder being thrown into the
eyes of the complainant was neither supported by forensic
or medial evidence, nor corroborated by PW.3 (Doctor), the
medical witness. No traces of chilli powder were found in the
vehicle or on the clothes of the complainant or other witnesses.
Moreover, the prosecution case, at its core, is one of an
attempted escape from custody by the undertrial prisoner,
not an attempt to murder. These aspects were ignored by the
Courts below, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
7.5. It was further submitted that DW.3 (Gurmeet Singh), Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Maur, who conducted a detailed
preliminary enquiry, had categorically ruled out the involvement
of the appellant in any criminal conspiracy and found him to be
innocent. The appellant was not named in the original charge
sheet, and was subsequently summoned under Section 319
Cr.P.C on the basis of vague allegations and without any fresh
or additional incriminating material, having emerged during
trial. The summoning order dated 05.07.2012, was passed
mechanically and without due application of mind. The High
Court also erred in failing to examine the legality and correctness
of this summoning order, while disposing of the appeal.
7.6. It was further pointed out that both courts below erroneously
referred to the appellant as a police officer and as a supervisory
official of the complainant, whereas he was an official of the
Jail Department, deputed for a distinct purpose. This factual
mischaracterization has led to manifest injustice and vitiated
the approach adopted by the courts below.
7.7. Lastly, it was submitted that the appellant is a government
servant with 35 years of unblemished service, and the conviction
has resulted in harsh consequences including the forfeiture of
his pensionary benefits.
698
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7.8. In view of the foregoing, the learned counsel submitted that
the concurrent judgement of conviction passed against the
appellant, are perverse and deserve to be set aside.
8.
The learned counsel for the State / respondent opposed the appeal
and submitted that the conviction of the appellant is well-founded
and supported by sufficient oral and circumstantial evidence. It was
contended that the appellant, though an official of the Jail Department,
played an active role in facilitating the commission of the offence by
deliberately selecting a vehicle that enabled the assailants to launch an
assault on the complainant and attempt to free the undertrial prisoner.
8.1. It was further contended that the appellant persuaded the
victims to board a vehicle in which two persons were already
present along with the driver - all of whom were known to the
appellant. Acting upon the appellant's instructions, the vehicle
was stopped at a pre-designated location, whereupon the
assailants carried out the attack. Notably, no injury was inflicted
upon the appellant, suggesting his collusion. Despite hearing
the cries for help, the appellant neither intervened nor made
any effort to assist the victims. Rather, he absconded from the
scene along with the accused persons and subsequently failed
to report back or accompany the injured to the civil hospital,
Rampura. Furthermore, he did not make any statement before
the police, nor he examine or cite any independent witness
from the vicinity who could support his version of events.
8.2. The learned counsel submitted that the overall conduct of the
appellant including his failure to act during the violent assault,
which involved the use of deadly weapons and red chilli powder,
reveals his conscious participation in the criminal conspiracy. His
behaviour was inconsistent with that expected of a government
officer, and instead indicated deliberate alignment with the
assailants' objective.
8.3. It was also emphasized that there existed no motive or reason
for the complainant or the injured eyewitnesses - who were
police officials themselves - to falsely implicate the appellant.
The testimony of PW.1 Hardial Singh, an injured eyewitness,
stood corroborated by the version set out in the FIR and by the
deposition of PW.2 Harjit Singh, the complainant and another
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
699
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
injured eyewitness. Their consistent narratives, coupled with the
testimony of PW.7 Sukhchain Singh, the investigating officer,
established the integrity of the prosecution case.
8.4. With respect to the charge under Section 307 IPC, it was
submitted that the nature of the assault, the weapons used,
and the intent to incapacitate the complainant, even if injuries
were not ultimately grievous, attracted the ingredients of an
attempt to commit murder. The use of red chilli powder in the
eyes of the victims, especially in the context of a custodial
escort operation, clearly demonstrated intent to commit a
serious and premeditated offence.
8.5. The learned counsel further argued that the appellant's
summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was lawful and based
on the clear and incriminating testimony of the complainant
during the course of trial, which revealed the appellant's
active participation in the offence. The mere exoneration of the
appellant during the police investigation did not preclude the
trial Court from invoking its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
as the court is not bound by the opinion of the Investigating
Officer and is competent to summon any person against whom
evidence emerges during the course of trial.
8.6. In view of the above, it was urged that the findings of guilt
recorded by the trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, were
based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and
do not warrant any interference by this Court.
8.7. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the appeal is
devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
9.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials
available on record.
10. It is not in dispute that originally, the appellant was not named in
the FIR and that the preliminary investigation conducted by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maur, had opined that he was not
involved in the offence. However, during the course of trial, based
on the evidence that emerged, the prosecution filed an application
under Section 319 Cr.P.C., pursuant to which the appellant was
summoned as an accused.
700
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
11. To establish the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution
examined fifteen witnesses and also exhibited various documents,
including the First Information Report, statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., medical reports, and seizure memos, as well as
material objects collected during the course of investigation through
the witnesses. In defence, the appellant examined three witnesses
as DW.1 to DW.3, and relied upon four documents, marked as
Exhibits D1 to D4.
12. At the outset, it would be appropriate to briefly survey the material
evidence led by both sides.
12.1. PW.1 Hardial Singh deposed that on 30.11.2010, he, along
with Head Constable Harjit Singh was assigned the duty of
escorting undertrial accused Kuldeep Singh for production
before the Court of Sh. L.K.Singla, SDJM, Talwandi Sabo.
The accused was taken to Court by bus and the appellant
also accompanied them in the same bus. At about 2.30 pm,
after conclusion of the court proceedings, PW.1 and Head
Constable Harjit Singh were standing at the main gate of the
court complex. At that time, the appellant informed them that
a Qualis vehicle was parked nearby, and he personally knew
the persons sitting inside it, who were travelling to Barnala.
The appellant suggested PW.1 and Harjit Singh to travel in
that vehicle up to Barnala. On the appellant's assurance,
they agreed and boarded the vehicle. According to PW.1,
the appellant was sitting in the front passenger seat; PW.1,
Head Constable Harjit Singh, and accused Kuldeep Singh
sat on the middle seat, while two other persons were seated
at the rear. When the vehicle reached near village Dhadda
on the main highway, the appellant asked the driver to stop
the vehicle, stating that he wanted to attend a nature call. As
soon as the vehicle stopped, accused Kuldeep Singh and the
two persons seated in the rear seat attacked PW.1 and Harjit
Singh. Red Chilli powder was thrown into their eyes; one of
the rear occupants assaulted PW.1 with a knife on his back,
and the other struck Harjit Singh below the head with a kirpan.
Upon raising alarm, some people gathered at the scene, at
which point the appellant, and the other two assailants fled
from the spot. But, accused Kuldeep Singh was unable to
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
701
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
escape, as he was handcuffed and tied with a belt of Head
Constable Harjit Singh. Thereafter, PW.1 and Harjit Singh were
taken to Civil Hospital, Rampura by the vehicle driver. PW.1
further stated that PW.7 Sukhchain Singh the Investigating
officer, recorded his and Harjit Singh's statements. He stated
that the incident was the result of a conspiracy hatched by
Kuldeep Singh and others. However, in his deposition, PW.1
identified only accused Kuldeep Singh and did not identify the
other assailants. To this extent, he was treated as a hostile
witness and he was subjected to cross-examination by the
prosecution. During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that
Kuldeep Singh had referred to one of the two other assailants
as Mana Singh during their conversation.
12.2. PW.2 Harjit Singh, Head Constable, deposed that on
30.11.2010, he along with Head Constable Hardial Singh
(PW.1) had brought undertrial accused Kuldeep Singh @
Deepi to be produced before the Court of Sh. L.K.Singla,
SDJM, Talwandi Sabo in connection with FIR No. 59 dated
31.05.2008 under sections 341, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. The
journey to Talwandi Sabo was undertaken by bus. After
production in Court, around 2.30 pm., as they reached the
main gate of the court complex, the appellant met them and
suggested that they return to Barnala in a Qualis vehicle
bearing Regn. No. PB 19C 8750. The appellant informed
them that the persons seated in the said vehicle were known
to him and that, it was headed towards Barnala. Although
PW.2 initially expressed a preference to return by the same
bus, the appellant insisted, claiming that he had accompanied
them earlier in the same bus. Thereafter, the appellant took
the front passenger seat beside the driver, while PW.2, PW.1,
and accused Kuldeep Singh occupied the middle seat. Two
unknown persons were seated on the rear side of the vehicle.
PW.2 further deposed that during the journey, accused
Kuldeep Singh and the appellant conversed and referred
to one of the rear occupants as 'Manna'. After they passed
village Kutianwali, the appellant asked the driver to stop the
vehicle that he wanted to attend a call of nature. As soon as
the vehicle stopped, the two rear seat occupants threw red
702
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
chilli powder into the eyes of PW.1 and PW.2. One of them
inflicted a knife blow to the shoulder of PW.1, and the other
attacked PW.2 with a small sword (Kirpan). PW.2 managed
to partially shield himself with his carbine, which deflected
the blow, but caused injury to his forehead. Upon raising an
alarm, the appellant and the two assailants fled the scene.
The attackers also attempted to help accused Kuldeep Singh
escape. Whileso, Kuldeep Singh scuffled with the escorting
officers in an attempt to flee custody, but ended in vain.
Ultimately, PW.1 and PW.2 were taken to the Civil Hospital,
Rampura, in the same Qualis vehicle, and accused Kuldeep
Singh remained with them at that time.
12.2.1. PW.2 categorically stated that the incident was a result
of a conspiracy between accused Kuldeep Singh and
the appellant to facilitate the former's escape from
lawful custody. His statement was recorded by the
Police as Ex. PW2/A. In his supplementary statement,
PW. 2 named the two other accused as Maan Singh
and Baldev Singh, and during trial, he identified
both accused Kuldeep Singh and Baldev Singh.
PW.2 also stated that on the day of the occurrence,
when they saw Kuldeep Singh in the Central Jail,
Ludhiana, he was in the company of the appellant,
and all of them including appellant came to Talwandi
Sabo by bus, although the appellant had no official
connection with their duty. He admitted that as per
police regulations, the custody of the undertrial was
their sole responsibility, and it was improper to travel
with the inmate in a private vehicle accompanies by
strangers. He further admitted that they did not inform
any senior officer about their decision to travel with the
appellant, nor did they question the appellant about his
presence in Talwandi Sabo. PW.2 further admitted that
he could not identify the specific person who threw the
red chilli powder into their eyes. However, he denied
the defence suggestion that the incident occurred
due to a quarrel following excessive consumption of
liquor or that there was any collusion between him,
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
703
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
PW.1 and the appellant to orchestrate the escape of
Kuldeep Singh. He stoutly denied having made any
false statement before the police.
12.3. PW.3 Dr. R.P. Singh, Medical Officer at Civil Hospital,
Rampura, deposed that on 30.11.2010, he medically examined
Head Constable Hardial Singh (PW.1) and found the following
injuries:
(1) Incised wound measuring 1 1⁄2 cm x 1⁄2 cm on the back, just
below the neck; margins were clean cut with fresh bleeding
present
(2) Redness of both eyes.
According to the doctor, both injuries were simple in nature
and of probable duration within 12 hours. He opined that injury
no.1 was caused by a sharp-edged weapon, whereas injury
no.2 could have been caused by a blunt object.
12.3.1. On the same day, PW.3 also examined Head Constable
Harjit Singh (PW.2) and recorded the following injuries:
(1)
Incised wound measuring 1 cm x 1⁄2 cm on the
forehead, located just below the hairline, with
clean-cut margins and fresh bleeding.
(2)
Abrasion on the back of the left elbow joint,
reddish in colour
(3)
Redness of both eyes.
He opined that all three injuries 1,2 and 3 were simple
and of probable duration within 12 hours. Injury no.1
was caused by a sharp weapon, while injuries 2 and
3 were caused by blunt force.
PW.3 further deposed that upon an application
moved by Sub Inspector Sukhchain Singh regarding
the fitness of the victims for making statements, he
certified that both were fit to make statements.
During cross examination, PW.3 stated that redness
of eyes could be due to multiple causes, including
excessive alcohol consumption, and he did not detect
704
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
any specific contents of chilli powder in the victims'
eyes. He acknowledged that all injuries were simple
and none was dangerous to life.
12.4. PW.5 Ravinder Sharm, Junior Assistant in the office of the
District Transport Office, deposed that he produced the official
record pertaining to the Qualis vehicle bearing Regn. No.
PB 19C 8750. As per the said record, on 29.01.2009, the
Registration Certificate of the said vehicle was transferred in
the name of Karamjit Kaur W/o. Kuldeep Singh, residence of
Ward No.16, Barnala.
12.5. PW.7 Sukhchain Singh, who was serving as the Station
House Officer, Police Station Balianwali during the relevant
time, deposed that upon receipt of information regarding
the incident on 30.11.2010, he, along with police party,
proceeded to the Civil Hospital, Rampura. After obtaining
medical opinion regarding the fitness of the injured persons,
he recorded the statements of PW.1 Hardial Singh and PW.2
Harjit Singh. Based on their statements, the FIR (Ex.PW7/
C) was registered. He further deposed that he took into
possession a blood-stained woolen shirt and a vest from Head
Constable Hardial Singh. He also described the subsequent
steps of investigation, including the arrest of accused Kuldeep
Singh @ Deepi, the recovery of the Qualis vehicle, and the
preparation of a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence. He
also deposed regarding the arrest of accused Baldev Singh
on 23.02.2011, and other follow-up procedures undertaken
in the course of investigation. Additionally, he stated that on
the same day i.e., 30.11.2020, Head Constable Harjit Singh
produced one carbine along with 35 cartridges, one handcuff,
and the custody warrant pertaining to accused Kuldeep Singh
@ Deepi.
12.6. PW.10 Balwinder Singh deposed that he was the driver of
the Qualis vehicle bearing Regn. No. PB19 C 8750 which
was owned by Dial Singh @ Daya Singh. He stated that
he used to regularly park the said vehicle at the taxi stand
near Court Chowk, Barnala. According to his testimony, on
30.11.2010 at about 11.30 am, two Sikh men, hired his vehicle
for travel to Talwandi Sabo. He specifically stated that those
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
705
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
individuals were not police officials, and further deposed that
he had no personal knowledge regarding the incident. In view
of the apparent contradiction between his version and the
prosecution case, the prosecution sought to declare him a
hostile witness, alleging that he was suppressing the truth,
and obtained permission to cross-examine him. However,
even during cross-examination, PW.10 denied all material
suggestions and did not support the prosecution case.
12.7. DW.1 Balbir Singh, employed as a Fitter in the Record
Room of the Central Jail, Ludhiana, deposed that he was
conversant with the official records maintained in the jail. He
produced in evidence the notice issued to Superintendent,
Central Jail, Ludhiana, by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Talwandi Sabo, requiring the production of the
accused Kuldeep Singh on 30.11.2010. The said notice was
marked as Ex. D1.
12.8. DW.2 Hardev Singh, who was working as Naib Reader,
produced the enquiry report dated 03.01.2011 prepared by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maur, which was exhibited
as Ex.DW2 /A. He admitted during cross examination that he
was not posted in the office of the DSP at the relevant point
and had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case. His
deposition was based solely on the contents of the record
available with him.
12.9. DW.3 Gurmeet Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
deposed that he had conducted an enquiry into the incident
and had recorded the statements of the appellant as well as
the driver of the vehicle. Based on the facts verified during
the enquiry, he concluded that the appellant was innocent.
According to his findings, the appellant neither attacked
the policy party nor had any connection with the accused
persons. He further stated that the appellant's presence at
Talwandi Sabo on the date of the incident was pursuant to
a notice issued by the Court to the Superintendent, Central
Jail, Ludhiana, and that, the Superintendent deputed the
appellant to attend court proceedings on 30.11.2010. During
cross-examination, DW.3 admitted that he could not recall
the date and time when he visited the spot of the occurrence.
706
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
12.10. Ex. D2 (dated 27.11.2010) - reply to notice and Ex. D3 (dated
29.11.2010) - letter are issued by the Superintendent, Central
Jail, Ludhiana, addressed to the Divisional Judicial Magistrate,
Talwandi Sabo, regarding the non-production of accused
Kuldeep Singh @ Deepi before the Court on earlier dates.
13. In light of the oral testimonies and the documentary evidence brought
on record, we shall now proceed to examine whether the judgment of
conviction and sentence rendered by the Sessions Court, as affirmed
by the High Court, is legally sustainable and warrants interference
insofar as the appellant is concerned.
14. As already indicated, the prosecution examined as many as 15
witnesses, of whom, the principal witnesses are PW.1 (Hardial
Singh), P.W.2 (Harjit Singh) and PW.10 (Balwinder Singh). PW.1, a
member of the escort party, narrated the sequence of events relating
to the assault and attempted escape of undertrial prisoner Kuldeep
Singh. However, he turned hostile to the extent of not identifying
any of the accused, including the appellant, except Kuldeep Singh.
PW.10, the driver of the vehicle and an alleged eyewitness, also
turned hostile and denied any knowledge of the incident. As a result,
the prosecution case primarily hinges on the testimony of PW.2, the
complainant and injured escort officer, on whose statement the FIR
was registered by PW. 7, the Investigating Officer.
15. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are threefold:
Firstly, the appellant had been declared innocent by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Maur, during the preliminary inquiry, and
therefore, his subsequent summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C
was unjustified; Secondly, there was no overt act attributed to the
appellant nor was there any reliable, sufficient, or legally admissible
evidence to establish his involvement in a criminal conspiracy
under Section 120B IPC. It was contended that in the absence of
concrete proof of conspiracy or any direct role in the assault or
escape attempt, the conviction under Section 120B as well as for
the substantive offences alleged to have been committed pursuant
to the conspiracy is liable to be set aside. Thirdly, the prosecution's
case rests solely on the testimony of PW.2, an allegedly interested
witness, whereas other key witnesses either turned hostile, or failed
to identify the appellant, thereby rendering the evidence insufficient
to sustain conviction.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
707
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
16. The first contention - that the appellant was declared innocent
during the preliminary investigation - cannot be sustained in law.
In Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab5, the Constitution Bench of
this Court authoritatively interpreted the scope and ambit of Section
319 Cr.P.C., holding that even a person not named in the FIR or
chargesheet can be summoned to face trial if evidence recorded
during the course of trial indicates his involvement in the offence.
The Court emphasized that the opinion of the investigating agency is
merely tentative and cannot override the Court's independent judicial
assessment based on trial evidence. It further underscored that the
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is judicial in nature, independent of
the police's conclusions. For better appreciation, the relevant portion
of the judgment is extracted below:
"117. We accordingly sum up our conclusions as follows:
Questions (i) and (iii)
- what is the stage at which power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. can be exercised?
AND
- Whether the word "evidence" used in Section 319(1)
Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and
includes the evidence collected during investigation or
the word "evidence" is limited to the evidence recorded
during trial?
Answer
117.1. In Dharam Pal case, the Constitution Bench has
already held that after committal, cognizance of an offence
can be taken against a person not named as an accused
but against whom materials are available from the papers
filed by the police after completion of investigation. Such
cognizance can be taken under Section 193 Cr.P.C. and
the Sessions Judge need not wait till 'evidence' under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. becomes available for summoning
an additional accused.
5
(2014) 3 SCC 92
708
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
117.2. Section 319 Cr.P.C., significantly, uses two
expressions that have to be taken note of i.e., (1)
Inquiry (2) Trial. As a trial commences after framing
of charge, an inquiry can only be understood to be a
pre-trial inquiry. Inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202
Cr.P.C, and under Section 398 Cr.P.C. are species of the
inquiry contemplated by Section 319 Cr.P.C. Materials
coming before the Court in course of such enquiries can
be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in
the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of
power under Section 319 Cr.P.C., and also to add an
accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of
the chargesheet.
117.3. In view of the above position 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.
Question (ii) - Whether the word "evidence" used in
Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. could only mean evidence tested
by cross-examination or the court can exercise the
power under the said provision even on the basis of
the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the
witness concerned?
Answer
117.4. Considering the fact that under Section 319
Cr.P.C. a person against whom material is disclosed is
only summoned to face the trial and in such an event
under Section 319(4) Cr.P.C.