The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 120B IPC, ruling that criminal conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and the accused’s conduct. The court affirmed that prior exoneration in a police report does not bar trial courts from summoning an accused under Section 319 CrPC if trial evidence reveals complicity.
Facts Of The Case:
An Assistant Superintendent of Jail accompanied two Head Constables escorting an undertrial prisoner from Ludhiana to a court in Talwandi Sabo. After the hearing, the official persuaded the constables to return in a private Tata Qualis instead of the bus. Unknown to the officers, two unidentified individuals were already seated in the rear. During the journey, the official had the vehicle stopped on a pretext. At that moment, the two individuals threw red chilli powder into the constables’ eyes and attacked them with a knife and a kirpan in an attempt to free the handcuffed prisoner. The official, who remained unharmed, fled the scene with the assailants. The injured constables were later hospitalized. While initially cleared in a preliminary police inquiry, the jail official was later summoned to face trial based on evidence that emerged, culminating in his conviction for criminal conspiracy and other charges.
Procedural History:
The case originated from the conviction and sentencing of the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bathinda, on October 31, 2014. The appellant then filed Criminal Appeal No. S-4900-SB-2014 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court’s judgment on May 4, 2023. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant exercised his statutory right by filing the present Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2024 before the Supreme Court of India under its criminal appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, delivered the present judgment on August 11, 2025, dismissing the appeal and affirming the convictions and sentences.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court’s Big Equality Ruling :Army Can’t Restrict Women’s Numbers After Allowing Them In
Court Observation:
The Court observed that the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is inherently clandestine and is seldom proved by direct evidence, but can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused. It held that the testimony of a solitary, reliable eyewitness is legally sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Court further ruled that the power of a trial court under Section 319 CrPC to summon additional accused is independent and not constrained by a prior investigation report exonerating that individual, provided evidence emerges during the trial. The conduct of the appellant, a public servant, in facilitating the attack and his subsequent disappearance from the scene, was found to form an unbroken chain of incriminating circumstances establishing his complicity in the conspiracy.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant’s conviction and sentence under Sections 307, 186, 332, 353, 225, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found no merit in the arguments challenging the conviction based on conspiracy, the reliability of a single eyewitness, or the summoning under Section 319 CrPC. It ordered the appellant to be taken into custody immediately to serve the remainder of his sentence and for any unpaid fine to be recovered in accordance with the law.
Case Details:
Case Title: Gurdeep Singh vs. The State of Punjab Citation: 2025 INSC 957 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 705 of 2024 Date of Judgement: August 11, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here