Gurdeep Singh vs State of Punjab 2025 INSC 957 S.319 CrPC - S.120B IPC - Hostile Witness - Sole Eyewitness Testimony - Public Functionaries

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 319- 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 opinion of the investigating agency is merely tentative and cannot override the Court’s independent judicial assessment based on trial evidence- The power under Section 319 Cr.P.C is judicial in nature, independent of the police’s conclusions.

Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 120B- The 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, or a lawful act by unlawful means, conspiracy is typically established through circumstantial evidence, patterns of conduct, and the cumulative interferences drawn from the interactions of the accused persons. (Para 17) the offence of criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence, nor is it necessary that all conspirators participate in every stage of the commission of the offence. What is material is the existence of a prior agreement – express or implied – to commit an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means. Once such agreement is established, even by way of inference from circumstantial evidence, the legal consequences under Section 120B IPC follow. (Para 17.3)

Law of Evidence- Hostile Witness - A hostile witness’s testimony need not be discarded in its entirety and that the Court must carefully evaluate whether portions of such evidence are credible and corroborated. (Para 18.3) Eye Witness- Conviction can rest on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, provided the Court finds it trustworthy and corroborated by other evidence. (Para 18.7)

Public Functionaries - 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. Any deviation amounts not only to legal delinquency, but to a grave institutional and moral breach. (Para 20)