# Tarsem Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 614
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2528 of 2008
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar, Zafeer Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tarsem-singh-v-state-of-u-p-54462
- **Pages:** 21

## Text

_Characters 0–39,720 of 70,197. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39720 for what follows._

614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

71. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned along with
necessary documents for compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court
within two months.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 614
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2528 of 2008

Tarsem Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for consideration
Legality of child witness.

Headnotes
Indian Penal Code-sec 302-Applicant convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment- conviction
primarily rests upon the ocular version of PW-4 and PW-5-both are eye-witnesses -minor children of the
deceased- both witnesses have given a natural, consistent and vivid account of the occurrence- narrating the
sequence of events with minute and specific details- were examined after due satisfaction regarding their
competency- ocular version furnished by PW-4 and PW-5 finds complete and consistent support from the
medical evidence on record- evidence consistently points towards the guilt of the accused-appellant-Criminal
Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. State of M.P. v. Ramesh, (2011) 4 SCC 786
2. Pramila v. State of U.P., (2021) 12 SCC 550
3. Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2025) 2 SCC 381
4. Pradeep v. State of Haryana, (2023) 19 SCC 221
5. Zainul v. State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 1192

List of Acts
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Indian Evidence Act,1872

List of Keywords
Ocular version; child witnesses; natural witnesses; eye-witnesses

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Arun Kumar Shukla, Anuradha Singh, Farhat Jamal Siddiqui, Furkan, Jaleel
Ahmad, Jayant Singh Tomar, Manju Gupta, Rishad Murtaza, Smt. Arpita Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Govt. Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble Zafeer Ahmad, J.)
4 All. Tarsem Singh Vs. State of U.P.
615

1. Heard, Sri Rishad Murtaza and Ms. Farhat Jamal Siddiqui assisted by Ms. Aishwarya
Misra, for the appellant and Sri Arunendra, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The aforesaid criminal appeal arises out of order and judgment dated 05.09.2008 passed by
Special/ Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Sessions Trail No. 419 of 1999 (State v.
Gurdeep Kaur (deceased) and another) arising out of case crime no. 57 of 1999, wherein the
applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment u/s 302 of Indian Penal
Code (in short IPC) along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine further one
year additional simple imprisonment; and rigorous imprisonment of two year u/s 404 IPC along
with fine Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine further two months additional simple
imprisonment. It has further been provided that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

Prosecution Story in Nutshell:

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Gurdeep Kaur lodged a written report
stating therein that in the intervening night of 18/19.05.1999 at about 12:00 in midnight, she was
present in her house situated at village Phulwaria, Police Station Palia, Kheri. It was further stated
that at the relevant time, she was lying in the western room on the second floor along with her
children; her mother-in-law; Naseeb Kaur, and her elder, Sukhvinder Kaur, were lying in the
middle room, while her husband; Balvinder Singh, and his friend; Sobran Singh Kalsi, were lying
in the eastern room. It was further stated that seven to eight miscreants came to the second floor of
the house during the night. The miscreants got the middle room opened by her mother-in-law and
thereafter entered the room of her husband as well. As soon as they entered, they killed her husband
and his companion, as well as her mother-in-law and her elder, by firing bullets and by using sharpedged weapons. It was further stated that the miscreants looted jewellery and cash kept in the room
of her mother-in-law and thereafter started moving downstairs and at that time, the complainant
also fired from her licensed gun. Upon hearing the noise, Darshan Singh, Jaswant Singh from the
neighbourhood, her servant Ram Seva, and several other persons arrived at the spot and, in the light
of electricity and torch, saw and recognised the miscreants. The miscreants were chased, but they
managed to escape. It was further stated that all the miscreants were armed with country made
pistols and other weapons and that they could be identified along with the looted jewellery if
produced. It was also stated that all four dead bodies were lying inside the house. On these
allegations, the complainant requested that a report be lodged and appropriate legal action be taken.

4. On the basis of the said written report, on 19.05.1999 at around 1:30 AM a check FIR was
registered under Section 396 IPC in police station Palia, as case crime no. 57 of 99 and GD entry
no. 2 was made at the same time. The investigation of the case was handed over to SHO Suresh
Tripathi. Furthermore, during the investigation the names of Gurdeep Kaur and Tarsem Singh came
into the light and it was found that they have committed murder of Balwinder Singh, Sukhvinder
Kaur, Sarwan Singh Kalsi, and Naseeb Kaur.

5. During investigation on the basis of the informant, the investigating officer and other police
personnel arrested Tarsem Singh on 24.05.1999 from his house in village Pulwariya at around 2:00
PM. This was witnessed by Balwinder Singh, Balkaran Singh, Darshan Singh, and Pardeshi.
Thereafter, his interrogation revealed that he had been in an illicit relationship with Gurdeep Kaur
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for a long time, and this became known to Balvinder Singh and his family members. Due to this
Balvinder Singh had planned to kill them ( i.e. Gurdeep Kaur and Tarsem Singh), which was
overheard by Gurdeep and she told the same to Tarsem on 18.05.1999 in the afternoon. Thereafter,
on the same day at around 11:00 PM he reached Balvinder's house, where Gurdeep handed him
licensed gun of Balvinder and cartridges, thereafter, both of them with the use of the gun and knife
murdered all the four people and took away a pair of earing, gold bangles, gold ring and a bracelet
of Nasib Kaur, which was kept in Nasib Kaur's room. Furthermore, the said gun and knife was kept
by Gurdeep

6. Furthermore, during the course of investigation on 24.05.1999, when the accused Tarsem
Singh was taken to the place of occurrence, Gurdeep Kaur was found present there. During
interrogation, she accepted that she was having an illicit relationship with Tarsem Singh and also
confessed her involvement in the crime. In her confession, she stated that Tarsem Singh first
opened fire upon Balvinder Singh @ Kaku, and thereafter shot his friend Sarwan Kumar Kalsi. She
further confessed that she herself stabbed Naseeb Kaur and Sukhvinder Kaur.

7. It was further stated by her that she handed over the gun and knife used in the commission
of the offence and admitted that she had used the same to cause injuries to all the deceased persons.
She also confessed that, in order to evade liability, she had lodged a false FIR alleging the incident
to be one of dacoity.

8. The said knife and gun were taken into police custody and the recovery memo was prepared
in respect thereof (Ext. Ka-1), along with the site map of the place from where the recovery was
made (Ext. Ka-19). Furthermore, the recovered goods, gun and cartridges were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Lucknow, and the examination report was obtained from the Laboratory (Ext.
Ka-41)

9. Thereafter, upon completion of investigation and finding sufficient evidence, a charge sheet
was submitted in the Court against the accused Gurdeep Kaur and Tarsem Singh under Sections
302, 404, 411, and 117 IPC (Ext. Ka-20).

10. On 04.12.1999, charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against
accused Gurdeep Kaur and Tarsem Singh. In addition thereto, a charge under Section 177 IPC was
framed against accused Gurdeep Kaur, and a charge under Section 404 IPC was framed against
accused Tarsem Singh. Both the accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial.

11. After framing of the charges, accused Gurdeep Kaur died, and consequently, the
proceedings against her stood abated in terms of the order passed by the concerned Court dated
06.12.2001.

12. To prove its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, namely: PW-1: Darshan Singh,
PW-2 Mashwant Singh, PW-3: Balwant Singh, PW-4: Gurvinder Singh, PW-5:Jagjeet Singh, PW6: Dr. R V Singh, PW-7: S.I. Surendra Tripathi, and CW-1: SI Rajendra Prasad Nishad.

13. The list of the exhibits in this case is as follows:
4 All. Tarsem Singh Vs. State of U.P.
617
Exhibit No.
Item / Description

Ext. Ka-1
Recovery memo of licensed single-barrel gun and badi
chhuri (knife) recovered at the instance of Gurdeep Kaur

Ext. Ka-2
Recovery memo of ornaments allegedly belonging to
deceased Naseeb Kaur (gold earrings, bangles, ring, watch
etc.) recovered from the accused

Ext. Ka-3
Inquest report of deceased Balvinder Singh

Ext. Ka-4
Inquest report of deceased Sukhvinder Kaur

Ext. Ka-5

Inquest report of deceased Sarwan Singh Kalsi

Ext. Ka-6
Inquest report of deceased Naseeb Kaur

Ext. Ka-7
Recovery memo of blood-stained country-made pistol
(tamancha)

Ext. Ka-8
Recovery memo of cash seized during investigation

Ext. Ka-9
Recovery memo of four empty cartridges (12 bore)

Ext. Ka-10

Recovery memo of blood-stained soil and plain soil from the
place of occurrence

Ext. Ka-11

Post-mortem report of deceased Sarwan Singh Kalsi

Ext. Ka-12
Post-mortem report of deceased Naseeb Kaur

Ext. Ka-13
Post-mortem report of deceased Sukhvinder Kaur

Ext. Ka-14
Post-mortem report of deceased Balvinder Singh

Ext. Ka-15
Check FIR

Ext. Ka-16

General Diary (GD) entry relating to registration of FIR

Ext. Ka-`17
Site plan of the place of occurrence

Ext. Ka-19

Site map of the place from where gun and knife were
allegedly recovered

Ext. Ka-20
Charge-sheet submitted against the accused

Ext. Ka-21 to 24

Police Form No. 13 relating to dispatch of dead bodies for
post-mortem

Ext. Ka-25 to 28
Sketches of dead bodies

Ext. Ka-29 to 32

Sample of the seals used to seal the dead bodies
Ext. Ka-33 to 36

Letters to R.I.
Ext. Ka-37 to 40

Letters to C.M.O
Ext. Ka-41

Forensic Examination report of the recovered single barrel
gun and four cartridges
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Furthermore, the list of the material exhibits in this case are as follows: Exhibit No.

Exhibit No.
Item/Description
Material Exhibit-1

Two Gold Earrings
Material Exhibit -2

A broken red bangle
Material Exhibit -3

Two steel bracelets
Material Exhibit -4

One rusted bracelet
Material Exhibit -5

One white HMT ladies watch with chain
Material Exhibit-6

Blood-stained Cloth
Material Exhibit-7
A large knife (badi chhuri)

15. On perusal of the order sheet of the Ld. Trial Court it transpires that appellant in his
statements u/s 313 CrPC dated 03.07.2003 expressed his desire to produce defence evidence and
thereafter date was fixed on 08.07.2003, but on 08.07.2003 adjournment was sought by Tarseem
Singh and the case was adjourned and next date was fixed on 23.07.2003, but again on that date
adjournment was sought which was allowed on the condition of last opportunity and the case was
listed on 28.07.2003. On 28.07.2003 again adjournment was sought but the same was rejected and
the case was listed for argument, that is why appellant has not produced any oral or documentary
evidence in his defence. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant denied having
committed the crime. Thus, the appellant pleaded innocence. 16. Upon a comprehensive appraisal
of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant to
undergo rigorous life imprisonment u/s 302 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of
payment of fine further one year additional simple imprisonment; and rigorous imprisonment of
two year u/s 404 IPC along with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine further two
months additional simple imprisonment. It has further been provided that both the sentences shall
run concurrently.

Submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant:-

17. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment contending that the
prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction is
unsustainable in law. It is submitted that the case rests primarily on the testimony of child witnesses
(PW-4 and PW-5), which is unreliable, being susceptible to tutoring and suffering from material
inconsistencies, particularly with regard to sequence of events and number of gunshots. It is further
contended that their conduct in not disclosing the incident immediately creates serious doubt about
their presence. Learned counsel also pointed out that key witnesses, namely PW-1 and PW-3, have
turned hostile, thereby weakening the prosecution case. It is argued that there are material
inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, and submit that such inconsistencies render
the prosecution version doubtful. It is further submitted that the recovery of alleged weapon and
articles is doubtful, inasmuch as the recovered articles were not properly identified and the
recovery proceedings are not free from suspicion. It has also been contended that the learned Trial
Court acted grossly in illegal manner so far as it is related to the recording of the statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish any clear
4 All. Tarsem Singh Vs. State of U.P.
619
motive. It is lastly argued that the accused has been falsely implicated due to village factionalism
and that the trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence, thus the appellant is entitled
to benefit of doubt.

Submissions made by learned A.G.A : -

18. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State opposed the submissions advanced on
behalf of the accused-appellant and supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Trial Court. It was submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
through cogent and reliable evidence and that the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5, though related
witnesses, are natural witnesses, whose presence at the place of occurrence is fully established.
Learned A.G.A. further contended that mere hostility of certain witnesses does not demolish the
prosecution case, when the core version stands duly proved. It was also urged that the medical and
documentary evidence corroborates the ocular account and the recovery effected at the instance of
the accused lends further assurance to the prosecution story. Accordingly, learned A.G.A.
submitted that no illegality, perversity or infirmity exists in the findings recorded by the Trial Court
and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Oral Testimonies:

In order to appreciate the issues arising in the present appeal, it is appropriate to examine, in
brief, the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution.

1. PW-1 Darshan Singh deposed that about three years prior to his deposition, Balvinder
Singh, Nasib Kaur, Sukhvinder Kaur and a guest from Punjab were murdered during the night, and
that he came to know about the incident in the morning. He denied having witnessed the occurrence
and further stated that no recovery was made from accused Tarsem Singh in his presence. He
admitted his signatures on certain documents prepared by the Investigating Officer but deposed that
their contents were not read over to him. The witness was declared hostile.

2. During cross-examination, he denied having given any statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and disowned the same. He further deposed that the accused was not present at the time
when his signatures were obtained on Ext. Ka-5 and Ka-6. He also deposed that he later went to the
house of the accused, found him sleeping, woke him up, and thereafter the accused came out and
informed the police.

3. PW-2 Mashwant Singh, s/o Harnam Singh, deposed that on 19.05.1999 inspector
prepared the panchayatnama of the dead bodies of Balvindra Singh, Sukhvendra Kaur, Sarwan
Singh and Naseeb Kaur (Ext. Ka-3 to Ext. Ka-6 respectively).

4. No cross-examination of PW-2 was conducted.

5. PW-3 Balwant Singh deposed that he did not clearly recollect whether the
Investigating Officer had taken into possession any blood-stained soil, cartridges or empty shells
from the house of Balvinder Singh in his presence. He admitted his signatures on certain
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
documents (paper no. K-6/1 to K-6/4), but stated that their contents were not read over to him and
he was unaware of what was written therein. He gave a similar response with respect to other
documents (Ext. Ka-7 to Ka-10). The witness was declared hostile.

6. During cross-examination, he denied having given any statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and expressed ignorance as to how such a statement came to be recorded. He further denied
the suggestion that he was deposing falsely in collusion with the accused.

7. PW-4 Gurvinder Singh, son of deceased Balvinder Singh, was examined before the
Trial Court. On the date of his deposition, the witness was of 15 years of age. The Trial Court,
before recording his testimony, conducted a preliminary inquiry to assess his competence to
depose. Upon being asked where he was present, the witness replied that he was in Court. Upon
being asked about the duty of the Court, he replied that the function of the Court is to punish the
culprit/accused ("Mulljiman ko saja dena"). Upon such interaction, the Trial Court formed the
opinion that although the witness was of tender age, he possessed sufficient understanding and
intelligence to comprehend the nature of questions put to him and to give rational answers.
Accordingly, the Court proceeded to record his testimony.

8. During Examination-in-Chief, he deposed that he knew the accused, Tarsem Singh,
who was a resident of his village Phulvariya. He further deposed that Gurdeep Kaur was his
biological mother and that she died after the incident. He further deposed that he was the eldest
among three brothers and one sister. He further deposed that his father, deceased Balvinder Singh,
had earlier married Sukhavinder Kaur, whom he referred to as his Badi Maa. He further deposed
that Sukhavinder Kaur had one daughter who was married prior to the incident. He further deposed
that the accused Tarsem Singh had been visiting their house, ever since he became old enough to
understand things. He further deposed that his grandmother disliked such visits and had instructed
his father as well as his biological mother not to allow Tarsem Singh to visit the house. He further
deposed that Tarsem Singh used to visit the house even in the absence of his father.He further
deposed that the deceased Sarwan Singh Kalsi, who was a friend of his father, was a resident of
Punjab and had come to stay at their house about three to four days prior to the date of the incident.
He further deposed that their house was a double-storied structure. He further deposed that on the
upper floor there were three rooms-one on the eastern side, one on the western side and one in the
middle. He further deposed that he used to address his father as "Kaku". He further deposed that the
incident occurred in the intervening night of 18/19.05.1999. He further deposed that on that night,
his father and Sarwan Singh Kalsi were sleeping in the eastern room on the upper floor. He further
deposed that in the middle room, he and his younger brother, Jagjit Singh, were sleeping on one
cot, while on the adjacent cot his grandmother Nasib Kaur and his Badi Maa Sukhavinder Kaur
were sleeping. He further deposed that his biological mother Gurdeep Kaur, along with her two
younger children, was sleeping in the western room. He further deposed that a tube light was on in
the middle room as Nasib Kaur had a habit of sleeping with the light on. He further deposed that at
about 12:00 midnight, he and his brother woke up after hearing the sound of two gunshots fired
from the eastern room. He further deposed that thereafter he saw Tarsem Singh and Gurdeep Kaur
entering in their room from the eastern side, there being a door between the two rooms. He further
deposed that Tarsem Singh was carrying a single-barrel gun (ek naali bandook) and Gurdeep Kaur
was carrying a big knife (badi chhuri).He further deposed that Gurdeep Kaur was wearing only
4 All. Tarsem Singh Vs. State of U.P.
621
drawers (कच्छा) and vest (बतनर्ान) while her face was covered with a red scarf. He further deposed
that as soon as she entered the room, she stabbed Nasib Kaur on her body and face. He further
deposed that at the same time Tarsem Singh fired upon Sukhavinder Kaur. He further deposed that
his grandmother and his Badi Maa died as a result of the injuries sustained. He further deposed that
thereafter his biological mother,Gurdeep Kaur, threatened him and his brother not to disclose
anything to anyone, failing which Tarsem Singh would kill them. He further deposed that due to
this threat he was frightened. He further deposed that after the incident, Tarsem Singh and Gurdeep
Kaur left the house. He further deposed that he, thereafter, went to the eastern room and saw his
father and Sarwan Singh Kalsi lying dead. He further deposed that he remained silent out of fear
and that after about eight days, when the police arrested Tarsem Singh and Gurdeep Kaur, his fear
subsided. He further deposed that only thereafter he disclosed the entire incident to the
Investigating Officer.

9. During cross-examination, he deposed that his mother belonged to Punjab. However,
he was not aware of the exact village or city from where she hailed. He further deposed that his
badi maa was a resident of Sampurna Nagar and was first married to his father. He further deposed
that she had one daughter, who was married in Khairtiha. He further deposed that her brother-inlaw was a resident of Khairtiha and used to visit their house. He further deposed that he, along with
his younger brother, used to visit Khairtiha and stay there for one to two days.He further deposed
that the information regarding the murder of his badi maa and father reached Khairtiha in the
morning and by that time the dead bodies had already been sealed. He further deposed that Tarsem
Singh was not present when the dead bodies were being sealed. He further deposed that he was not
capable of stating as to whose body was sealed first or last and that no paperwork was done in his
presence. He further deposed that no blood sample was collected by the Inspector in his presence
and that the Inspector did not question any witness in his presence. He further deposed that the
Inspector did not call him to the police station even after eight to ten days of the incident and did
not ask him anything about the occurrence, nor did he himself narrate anything to the Inspector. He
further deposed that whatever was written by the Inspector was done on his own volition. He
further deposed that the testimony given by him was not tutored and that he was not deposing for
the first time. He further deposed that he studies at Palia School and that his younger brother, Jagjit,
also studies in the same school. He further deposed that at the time of the incident the school was
closed due to summer vacation. He further deposed that he was not well-versed in Hindi. He further
deposed that he and his brother were sleeping in the same room in which his badi maa and
grandmother were sleeping. He further deposed that his grandmother's name was Naseeb Kaur and
she was killed while she was sleeping and no gunshot was fired at her. He further deposed that he
heard three gunshots during the incident, out of which one was fired in his room and the second
shot was heard from the eastern room. He further deposed that after the attackers fled, he and his
brother came out of the room and at that time no one from the neighbourhood had arrived. He
further deposed that he woke up Seva Ram (servant), who was sleeping downstairs. He further
deposed that thereafter Seva Ram went to call the neighbours and then Darshan Singh, Balwant
Singh and others came, but Tarsem Singh was not present at that time. He further deposed that
when the police arrived, Gurdeep Kaur was present in the house and that there was no other person
present except the two offenders. He further deposed that when he went to wake his grandmother
Naseeb Kaur, she was already dead. He further deposed that he neither cried nor hugged any of the
dead bodies. He further deposed that he and his brother left the house during the night and returned
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
only after the police arrived. He further deposed that he did not inform any officer that his mother
and Tarsem Singh were the murderers of his father, his badi maa and his grandmother. He further
deposed that the offenders neither assaulted them nor fired upon them. He further deposed that it
would be wrong to say that he and his brother, Jagjit Singh (PW-5), were not present at the time of
the incident or that they reached the place after information was sent to Khairtiha. He further
deposed that the dead bodies were lying with their heads towards the west and legs towards the
east. He further deposed that the bodies were taken down from the cots and kept in the courtyard of
the terrace in his presence. He further deposed that when the police arrived, all four bodies were
kept in the courtyard in front of the eastern room. He further deposed that at about 4:00 P.M. the
bodies were taken to the mortuary, but neither he nor his brother accompanied the bodies and he
was unaware as to whether any family member accompanied them. He further deposed that the
bodies were later brought back, after which he and his brother participated in the last rites. He
further deposed that the offenders looted jewellery, cash and other valuable articles and scattered
the contents of the storage boxes. He further deposed that he went to his father's room after he was
already dead and clarified that his father's room was situated on the eastern side where he was
sleeping. He further deposed that the main door of his room faced north, whereas his father's room
was situated towards the south. He further deposed that he witnessed the occurrence from a place
between the wall and the door of his father's room, though he did not inform the police about this
fact. He further deposed that the offenders were carrying only a chhuri (knife) and a gun and
further clarified that none of the offenders carried any other knife. He further deposed that his
mother covered her hair with a dupatta and not her face. He further deposed that it would be
incorrect to state that he had given a false statement or that he had been tutored regarding his
deposition. He further deposed that he had no knowledge as to whether any private counsel had
been engaged or whether his mother had been murdered. 10. PW-5 Jagjit Singh, son of deceased
Balvinder Singh, was examined before the Trial Court. On the date of his deposition, the witness
was 12 years of age. The Trial Court, before recording his testimony, conducted a preliminary
inquiry to assess his competence to depose. Upon being questioned, the witness stated that he was
studying in Class VII at Edmonton Public School, an English medium institution. When asked
about the purpose of his presence in Court, he stated that he had come to give evidence and that the
function of the Court is to punish the culprit/accused ("Mulzim ko saza dena"). On the basis of
these responses, the Trial Court recorded a finding that although the witness was of tender age, he
possessed sufficient understanding of the nature of questions and was competent to depose.

11. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that he knew the appellant Tarsem Singh,
who was a resident of his village Phulvariya. He further deposed that Gurdeep Kaur was his
biological mother, Sukhavinder Kaur, the first wife of Balvinder Singh, was his "Badi Maa", and
that Sarvan Singh Kalsi was his father's friend who had come from Punjab approximately five days
prior to the date of the incident. He further deposed that Tarsem Singh used to frequently visit their
house, both in the presence and absence of his father Balvinder Singh. He further deposed that his
grandmother, Nasib Kaur, did not approve of these visits and had told his father not to allow
Tarsem Singh to come to the house. He further deposed that the incident occurred on the night of
18.05.1999. He further deposed that on the same night, he was sleeping in the room situated on the
upper floor along with his brother PW-4 Gurvinder Singh, his grandmother Nasib Kaur, and his
"Badi Maa" Sukhavinder Kaur. He further deposed that his father Balvinder Singh and guest
Sarvan Singh were sleeping in the eastern room, whereas his mother Gurdeep Kaur and his two
4 All. Tarsem Singh Vs. State of U.P.
623
younger siblings were sleeping in the western room. He further deposed that at around 12:00-1:00
a.m., he heard the sound of two gunshots emanating from his father's room. He further deposed that
upon hearing the gunshots, he and his brother PW-4 woke up. They then saw Tarsem Singh and
Gurdeep Kaur enter their room, where the tube light was on. He further deposed that Tarsem Singh
was armed with a single-barrel gun, while Gurdeep Kaur was carrying a large knife (badi chhuri).
He further stated that Gurdeep Kaur attacked his grandmother Nasib Kaur with the chhuri, and that
Tarsem Singh fired at Sukhavinder Kaur, as a result of which both women succumbed to their
injuries. He further deposed that his mother Gurdeep Kaur threatened both him and his brother that
if they disclosed anything to the police, Tarsem Singh would kill them. He further deposed that
thereafter Tarsem Singh left the house, but Gurdeep Kaur remained inside. He further deposed that
on the next morning, he saw his father Balvinder Singh and Sarvan Singh lying dead in their room.
He further deposed that he did not inform the police immediately due to fear, but disclosed the
entire incident to the Investigating Officer after the arrest of Tarsem Singh, when his fear had
subsided. 12. During cross-examination, he deposed that in all three gunshots were fired during the
incident. He had awakened on hearing the first shot and thereafter heard two more shots. While
verifying his statements, he further deposed that he had not informed the police that his mother had
fired any shot, and that if any such statement was recorded under his name, he was unaware of the
reason for the same. He further deposed that he informed the investigating officer that his mother
threatened them (P.W. 4 & P.W. 5) saying that Tarsem would kill all three of them ( including the
mother) if they disclosed the truth, however, he did not know in what manner exactly did the
investigating officer recorded this statement. He denied that his mother had stated that he would get
into trouble if he told anyone about the incident. He further deposed that by the time the police
arrived, he was no longer afraid and had informed them about the scene of the crime. He further
deposed that Sukhavinder Kaur was lying on a cot and had been shot from close range from the
western side; however, he corrected himself and clarified that the cot was placed in an East-West
direction and not North-South as earlier stated. He further deposed that nothing was looted from the
house-neither money nor jewellery-and that the alleged offenders had not scattered any household
articles. He further deposed that neither he nor his brother, P.W.-4 Gurvinder Singh, left the cot
until the offenders had departed, and thereafter both of them went to wake up the servant, Sewa
Ram, but did not disclose to him the identity of the offenders. He also admitted that he did not
inform the servant about the murder of his father, mother, and grandmother. He further deposed
that he did not inform anyone about the incident until the date of his testimony, except the police.
He further denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident or that he was not present at
the time of occurrence. He further deposed that the offenders did not assault him and that he had no
knowledge as to whether there were bloodstains on his clothes. He further deposed that he did not
took the dead bodies in his arms or cry over them, and that he was unaware as to whether the dead
bodies were wrapped in cloth and sealed. He further deposed that when the police arrived in the
morning, the dead bodies were lying on the cots in the rooms; however, the police did not complete
any inquest proceedings regarding the bodies in his presence and subsequently took them away. He
also stated that his brother did not accompany the police. He further deposed that at the time of the
incident, his sister was two to three years younger than him.

13. PW-6 Dr. R.V. Singh, Senior Medical Officer, District Hospital, Kheri, conducted
the post-mortem examinations of all four deceased persons on 19.05.1999 at different intervals of
time and proved the reports (Ext. Ka-11 to Ka-14). He deposed that all the deceased had died
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
approximately one day prior and that rigor mortis and post-mortem staining were present on the
bodies.

On the body of deceased Sarwan Singh Kalsi, he found one firearm injury on the right
side of the face causing extensive fractures of skull bones, with recovery of pellets and wadding
material, along with as many as twelve incised wounds on different parts of the body including
forehead, shoulder, arms, chest, forearm, hand, thigh and back, indicating repeated assault by a
sharp-edged weapon and use of firearm.

On the body of deceased Naseeb Kaur, he found multiple grievous incised and stab
wounds, including four deep incised wounds on the head and face causing extensive fracture of
skull bones, along with several stab wounds on chest, forearms, back and other parts of the body,
totaling about fifteen injuries, all indicative of a brutal assault by a sharp-edged weapon.

On the body of deceased Sukhvinder Kaur, he found a firearm injury of entry on the
upper part of the face extending to the temporal region, with blackening and tattooing around the
wound, and recovery of twenty-eight metallic pellets and wadding material from the cranial cavity,
clearly indicating close-range firing.

On the body of deceased Balvinder Singh, he found a firearm injury on the chin causing
extensive cranial damage along with a penetrating stab wound on the abdomen, resulting in injury
to internal organs and accumulation of blood in the abdominal cavity.

He opined that the firearm injuries were caused by a gun and the remaining injuries were
caused by a sharp-edged weapon such as a knife (chhuri), and that all the deceased died due to
shock and haemorrhage as a result of the ante-mortem injuries.

14. During cross-examination, he deposed that injuries no. 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the body of
deceased Naseeb Kaur could have likely been caused by some heavy sharp weapon like a pickaxe
(ghadashi) or a billhook (banka).

15. PW-7 Surendra Tripathi, the Investigating Officer, deposed that on 19.05.1999 at
about 1:30 A.M., complainant Gurdeep Kaur lodged a written report at Police Station Paliya, on the
basis of which check FIR was prepared, which he proved as Ext. Ka-15, along with the
corresponding General Diary entry, proved as Ext. Ka-16. He further proved that the inquest
reports (panchayatnama) of the deceased persons, prepared by S.I. K.N. Singh, are Ext. Ka-3 to Ka6. He further deposed that during investigation, blood-stained and plain soil were collected, which
he proved as Ext. Ka-10, and empty cartridges recovered from the place of occurrence were proved
as Ext. Ka-9. He further proved the site plan of the place of occurrence prepared by him as Ext. Ka17. He further deposed that on 24.05.1999, accused Tarsem Singh was arrested and, on the basis of
his disclosure statement, articles belonging to deceased Naseeb Kaur, namely gold earrings,
bangles, a ring and a watch, were recovered, which he proved as Ext. Ka-2. He further deposed that
on the same day, accused Gurdeep Kaur was arrested and at her instance a licensed single-barrel
gun and a knife (badi chhuri) were recovered, which he proved as Ext. Ka-1. He further proved that
after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, which he proved as Ext. Ka-20.
4 All. Tarsem Singh Vs. State of U.P.
625

16. During cross-examination, he admitted that four empty cartridges were recovered
from the place of occurrence, two from the upper room and two from the ground floor, and that the
recovered firearm was the licensed gun of deceased Balvinder Singh. He further deposed that the
recovered articles were not formally identified but were recognized by a neighbour. He denied the
suggestion that the accused had been falsely implicated or that the recovery was fabricated.

17. CW-1 Rajendra Prasad Nishad, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Kheri, deposed that in
compliance of the order dated 27.08.2003 passed by the Fast Track Court-IV against absconding
accused Tarsem Singh, he executed the attachment proceedings on 04.09.2003 at the residence of
the accused. He proved that the movable property of the accused was taken into police custody and
attachment was carried out in the presence of witnesses. He further proved that the attached articles
were handed over to Mangal Singh of village Ranjinganj Majra Lughouri under proper
documentation and in presence of witnesses.He further deposed that the seizure memo was
prepared on the spot, which was read over and explained to the witnesses and was duly signed by
them. He also stated that the accused Tarsem Singh was absconding and his whereabouts were not
known.

Court Analysis:

Credibility of Child Witnesses and Evidentiary Value of Their Testimony:

19. The conviction in the present case primarily rests upon the ocular version of PW-4
Gurvinder Singh and PW-5 Jagjit Singh, both of whom are stated to be eye-witnesses of the
occurrence. A careful reading of their depositions reveals that they have furnished a vivid and
graphic account of the incident, narrating the sequence of events with minute and specific details,
including the manner in which the accused approached the spot, the role attributed to each accused,
the nature of weapons carried, and the manner in which the assault was carried out.

20. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued is that the conviction rests
primarily on the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5, who are minor children of the deceased, and
therefore their evidence ought to be discarded being interested and susceptible to tutoring. This
Court is unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel for the following reasons:

a.