2025 Supreme(SC) 1176

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Gurdeep Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2024
Decided On : 11-08-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Criminal conspiracy – Offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, by its very nature, is seldom capable of being proved by direct evidence – Being a clandestine agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, conspiracy is typically established through circumstantial evidence.
(2) If sole witness is of a sterling quality and inspires confidence, conviction can be safely based upon such testimony.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 319 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307, 186, 332, 353, 225 and 120B – Summoning of additional accused to fact trial – Attempt to murder, hurt and criminal conspiracy – Detailed, consistent, and credible testimony of injured Escort Officer, clearly implicates appellant – His deposition categorically establishes that appellant facilitated use of a private vehicle in which assailants were already present and deliberately orchestrated a stop at a vulnerable location under a false pretext, thereby enabling assault and escape attempt – In light of direct and incriminating evidence, Trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C to summon appellant to face trial. (Para 16.1)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 307, 186, 332, 353, 225 and 120B – Attempt to murder, hurt and criminal conspiracy – Conviction and sentence – Offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, by its very nature, is seldom capable of being proved by direct evidence – Being a clandestine agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, conspiracy is typically established through circumstantial evidence – Crime is complete with agreement itself and that no overt act is necessary to sustain conviction under Section 120B IPC – Presence of a common intention and coordinated acts of multiple persons can give rise to a legitimate inference of an unlawful agreement – Once such agreement is established, even by way of inference from circumstantial evidence, legal consequences under Section 120B IPC follow – In present case, prosecution has convincingly established existence of a prior concert of action between appellant and assailants – Evidence of a prosecution witness is not to be discarded in toto merely because witness has turned hostile – Courts are entitled to rely upon any portion of such testimony which is found to be credible and corroborated by other evidence on record – Testimony of a single eyewitness, if found trustworthy and credible, is sufficient to sustain conviction – Prosecution evidence clearly demonstrates that the attack on the police escort team was not a spontaneous occurrence, but a carefully orchestrated plan – Appellant, holding post of Assistant Superintendent of Jail, was fully aware of security protocols applicable to undertrial escorts – Instead of upholding these procedures, he misused his position and familiarity with escort personnel to subvert established norms – Appellant has failed to make out any ground for interference under Article 136 of Constitution – Conviction and sentence imposed are commensurate with appellant’s culpability and call for neither reduction nor interference. (Paras 17, 17.2, 17.3, 17.4, 18, 18.2, 18.4, 18.5, 18.7, 19, 20, 21 and 22)

Facts of the case:

Present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.05.2023 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the High Court upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.10.2014 rendered by Sessions Court against appellant / accused for the offences under Sections 307, 186, 332, 353, 225 and 120B IPC.

Findings of Court:

Appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith, to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment as awarded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The concerned authorities are directed to ensure the immediate execution of the sentence. If the fine amount has not yet been deposited, the same shall be recovered from the appellant in accordance with law, failing which, he shall undergo the default sentence as stipulated.

Result : Appeal dismissed.