Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Chain Singh Uikey vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2026
1
ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.19448-19450/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-09-2025
in CRLRC No. 1/2024, CRA No. 2969/2024 and CRA No. 3272/2024
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at
Jabalpur]
CHAIN SINGH UIKEY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION...............[TO BE TAKEN UP AT THE TOP OF THE
BOARD] (IA No. 293857/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 19-03-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR
Ms. Garima Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Verma, Adv.
Ms. Shreem Bajpai, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. B.P. Singh, D.A.G.
Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh Ga, Adv.
Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR
Mr. Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. These Petitions are at the instance of a Investigating Officer
of the First Information Report No.132/2022 dated 5-4-2022
registered with the Tirodi Police Station, District Balaghat for
Signature Not Verified
the offence punishable under Sections 363, 364, 376, 302 and 201
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.03.20
respectively of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the “IPC”) and
11:29:21 IST
Reason:
Sections 4, 5 and 6 respectively of the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the “POCSO Act”).
2
2. One Girdhari Sonwane was arrested in connection with the
alleged crime. The filing of the charge-sheet culminated in Special
Case No.25/2022. The accused was put to trial in the Court of
Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
Waraseoni, District Balaghat.
3. The Trial Court held the accused guilty of the alleged crime
and imposed a sentence of death penalty. Two minor girls aged 3
years (Approx.) and 5 years were the victims of the alleged crime.
The accused went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court
allowed the appeal and thereby set aside the Judgment and Order of
conviction and sentence of death penalty. In the Judgment of the
High Court, there are some observations as regards the tainted and
mala fide investigation undertaken by the petitioner before us.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by some of the observations made
by the High Court in its Judgment as contained in Para 55.
5. Para 55 reads thus:-
“55. Thus, when we see that the first 161, Cr.P.C., statements
has an overwriting in the month and ‘May’ has been changed to
‘April’, prosecution has failed to explain such cutting, and it
appears to be an after thought, so also the second 161, Cr.P.C.,
statement of PW-10 Omprakash Markam, being recorded not
immediately after lodging FIR, because he being the author of
last seen, Investigating officer was obliged to record his
statements at the earliest, but conduct of the Investigating
officer in waiting for the recovery of dead bodies, conduct of
postmortem, recovery of incriminating articles and then arrest
of the appellant and then recording statements under Section
161, Cr.P.C., brings the investigation under shroud. It appears
to be a motivated and malafide investigation, which cannot be
given a seal of approval.”
6. In the operative part of the Judgment, i.e. in Para 57 (iii),
the High Court observed that the original accused would be entitled
to cost of the litigation from the State quantified as
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). The Superintendent of Police
was directed to recover the cost from the present petitioner in his
capacity as the Investigating Officer.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that before passing any
derogatory remarks as contained in Para 55 of the Judgment of the
High Court, referred to above, and also while imposing cost of
3
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), he should have been heard. In
short, the principal argument is that no man should be condemned
unheard.
8. We also invited the attention of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner to the observations made by the High Court in
Para 10 of its impugned Judgment.
9. Para 10 reads thus:-
“Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1) was recorded by PW-21 Sub-Inspector
Gaurav Sharma. Prior to that he had registered Missing Person
Report also and, therefore, Missing Person Report (Ex.P-35)
appears to be false and fabricated. This witness in paragraph 17
of his cross-examination admits that original FIR, original
Missing Person Report and original Merg were not recorded by him.
In paragraph 17 he states on his own that original FIR, original
Missing Person Report and original Merg were recorded, after
recording of Dehati Nalishi by him when it was presented by the
concerned constable at Police Station Tirodi. Thus, it is evident
that the officer at Police Station Tirodi, while recording Missing
Person Report (Ex.P-35), was trying to manipulate the records,
inasmuch as, once Dehati Nalishi was already recorded and
intimation was sent by PW-21 Gaurav Sharma through a constable, as
is admitted by him in paragraph 17, and then he states that
Missing Person Report, FIR and original Merg were recorded after
presentation of Dehati Nalishi, then there was no occasion for the
authorities at Tirodi Police Station to have recorded Missing
Person Report. This shows that police personnel with a view to not
to carryout proper investigation or to falsely implicate the
accused had joined hands to create false and fabricated
documents.”
10. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the State of
Madhya Pradesh submitted that the State has taken a decision to
challenge the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the High
Court before this Court. According to him, the Special Leave
Petition would be filed within a period of 10 days from today.
11. We would like to hear both the matters together, i.e., the SLP
that may be filed by the State of M.P. as well as the present
petitions preferred by the Investigating Officer.
12. Post it on 20-4-2026.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
