LUCKNOW: The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Tarsem Singh, affirming his conviction and life imprisonment for the 1999 murder of four people in Lakhimpur Kheri. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad, ruled that the testimonies of the victim’s children, who were minor eye-witnesses at the time, were “cogent, credible and trustworthy” and remained unshaken despite the hostility of other prosecution witnesses.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred during the intervening night of May 18/19, 1999, in village Phulwaria, Lakhimpur Kheri. Initially, Gurdeep Kaur (the appellant’s co-accused and wife of one of the deceased) lodged an FIR alleging that 7-8 unidentified miscreants had committed dacoity and murdered her husband Balvinder Singh, his friend Sarwan Singh Kalsi, her mother-in-law Naseeb Kaur, and her elder, Sukhvinder Kaur.
However, the police investigation later revealed that Gurdeep Kaur was in an illicit relationship with the appellant, Tarsem Singh. It was alleged that the duo committed the murders to eliminate family members who opposed their relationship. Gurdeep Kaur died during the pendency of the trial, leading to the abatement of proceedings against her. The trial court convicted Tarsem Singh on September 5, 2008, under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Arguments of the Parties
The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the conviction, contending that the case rested primarily on the testimony of child witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5), whom they claimed were “susceptible to tutoring” and “unreliable.” They further argued that the hostility of key witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) and alleged inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence rendered the prosecution’s story doubtful.
Conversely, the learned A.G.A. for the State argued that the children were “natural witnesses” whose presence at the scene was established. The State maintained that the forensic and medical evidence corroborated the ocular account, and the recovery of the victims’ ornaments from the appellant’s possession provided strong circumstantial proof of guilt.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court focused extensively on the reliability of the child witnesses, Gurvinder Singh (PW-4) and Jagjit Singh (PW-5). The Bench noted that the Trial Court had conducted a preliminary inquiry to ensure their competence.
Addressing the reliability of their testimony, the Court observed:
“The deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring.”
The Bench highlighted that the children not only implicated the appellant but also their own mother, Gurdeep Kaur, which “rules out any possibility of false implication.” The Court further noted that their silence for eight days after the incident was a “natural human reaction” given the trauma and the death threats issued by the accused.
Regarding the medical evidence, the Court found it in “complete harmony” with the ocular version. Post-mortem reports showed a combination of firearm injuries and incised wounds, matching the witnesses’ description of Tarsem Singh carrying a gun and Gurdeep Kaur using a large knife. The Court held that minor inconsistencies often lend credibility rather than detract from it.
On the issue of the hostile witness (PW-1), the Court remarked:
“The conduct of PW-1 in resiling from his earlier position and withholding material facts strongly suggests that he has been won over by the accused party.”
The Bench also emphasized the forensic report (Ext. Ka-41), which matched cartridges found at the scene to the licensed gun of the deceased Balvinder Singh. The Court rejected the defense’s theory of a single retaliatory shot, noting that multiple cartridges were discharged, consistent with the prosecution’s version of a coordinated assault.
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the prosecution had established the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt.
“The evidence consistently points towards the guilt of the accused-appellant, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with his innocence.”
The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and order dated September 5, 2008, passed by the Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, were affirmed. Tarsem Singh, who is currently in jail, was ordered to continue serving his life sentence.
Case Details
- Case Title: Tarsem Singh v. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2528 of 2008
- Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad
- Counsels for Appellant: Rishad Murtaza, Farhat Jamal Siddiqui, Aishwarya Misra, Arun Kumar Shukla, Anuradha Singh, Furkan, Jaleel Ahmad, Jayant Singh Tomar, Manju Gupta, Arpita Srivastava
- Counsels for Respondent (State): Govt. Advocate, Arunendra (AGA)
- Date: April 7, 2026
