### Testimony of Credible Child Witnesses Implicating Their Own Parents Sufficiently Establishes Guilt for Murder

The prosecution alleged that on the night of May 18/19, 1999, Tarsem Singh (appellant) and Gurdeep Kaur (deceased co-accused) murdered four persons—Balvinder Singh, Nasib Kaur, Sukhvinder Kaur, and Sarwan Singh—using a licensed gun and a knife

Initially, Gurdeep Kaur lodged a false FIR alleging dacoity by unknown miscreants; however, investigation revealed an illicit relationship between her and the appellant as the motive

The appellant was arrested on May 24, 1999, leading to the recovery of stolen ornaments, while Gurdeep Kaur led to the recovery of the murder weapons

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 404 of the IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment

The appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the ground that it rested on the testimonies of child witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) and that independent witnesses had turned hostile

1. Whether the testimonies of child witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) are reliable enough to form the basis of conviction despite their delayed disclosure of the incident

2. Whether the hostility of independent recovery witnesses and inconsistencies in the testimony of PW-1 (informant's associate) vitiate the prosecution’s case

3. Whether the forensic and medical evidence sufficiently corroborates the ocular account to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The court primarily applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 404 (Dishonest misappropriation of property) of the IPC

It relied on Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the competency of child witnesses

Section 27 [of the Indian Evidence Act] regarding discoveries made pursuant to an accused's disclosure

The court applied the "Rule of Prudence" for child witnesses as established in State of M.P. v. Ramesh (2011) and Pramila v. State of U.P. (2021), requiring close scrutiny to rule out tutoring

It further utilized the principle from Section 106 of the Evidence Act regarding facts especially within the knowledge of the accused

The Court found the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 (aged 15 and 12) to be of "sterling quality," noting that the Trial Court conducted a preliminary inquiry into their competence

The Court reasoned that a child would not falsely implicate their own biological mother (Gurdeep Kaur) in a quadruple murder unless it were true, thereby ruling out tutoring

The delay in disclosure was excused as a natural reaction to the trauma and the death threats issued by the assailants

Regarding the hostility of PW-1 and PW-3, the Court held that their evidence could not be discarded in toto and that the contemporaneous General Diary entry (Ext. Ka-16) exposed PW-1’s attempt to shield the accused

Scientifically, the forensic report (Ext. Ka-41) matched the cartridges at the scene to the licensed gun recovered at the instance of the accused, contradicting the defense's "retaliatory fire" theory

The Court determined that the combination of credible ocular evidence, medical corroboration of firearm and incised wounds, and the appellant’s failure to explain his presence at the scene under Section 313 CrPC formed an unbroken chain of guilt

The Court affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court under Sections 302 and 404 IPC, dismissing the appeal. The appellant was ordered to continue serving his life imprisonment