Yogendra Saw @ Yogendra Sao vs The State of Jharkhand

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323/149, 341/149, 504/149 & 353/149 - Conviction and sentence - Criminal revision against concurrent findings of trial court and appellate court - Held: There must be specific evidence of overt act or instigation to sustain conviction for offences involving common object - Mere presence as a public figure at a protest, without any evidence of participation or instigation, cannot lead to conviction - Acquittal of co-accused with similar allegations raises serious doubt on conviction of the petitioner.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a sitting MLA, was convicted for offences under Sections 323/149, 341/149, 504/149 & 353/149 IPC for allegedly assaulting and abusing the informant during an inauguration ceremony. The trial court and appellate court concurrently held him guilty, while acquitting other accused persons including one who allegedly assaulted the informant.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that there was no specific evidence that the petitioner assaulted anyone or instigated the public. Most witnesses deposed that a mob gathered to protest the inauguration, but no overt act was attributed to the petitioner. The court noted that co-accused Leeladhar Sao, who allegedly assaulted the informant, was acquitted on the same evidence.

Issues: Whether the conviction of the petitioner based on concurrent findings of the courts below was perverse and liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conviction was based on erroneous appreciation of evidence, as there was no evidence of common object or intention to obstruct the function. The acquittal of co-accused with similar or more serious allegations made the conviction of the petitioner unjustified and perverse.

Result: Criminal revision allowed. Petitioner acquitted.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Criminal revision against conviction under Sections 323/149, 341/149, 504/149, 353/149 IPC for alleged assault and obstruction during public function. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Petitioner contended no common intention and no overt act; State argued concurrent findings supported by evidence. (Para 12 , 13 )

3. Revision allowed — Concurrent conviction set aside — Petitioner acquitted. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )

4. Can a conviction under Section 149 IPC be upheld without evidence of overt act or common intention?

No, the court held that without specific overt act attributed to the accused and without proof of common object, the conviction is perverse and unsustainable. (Para 18 , 19 )

5. Does the acquittal of the co-accused who committed the actual assault affect the conviction of the accused with no overt act?

Yes, the court found that since the alleged assailant was acquitted on the same evidence, the petitioner who had no overt act must also be acquitted. (Para 18 )

6. What is the scope of revisional court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact?

The court can interfere if the findings are perverse and beyond the weight of evidence on record, as was the case here. (Para 18 , 19 )

J UDGMENT

1. Heard the arguments of learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner and Learned Spl.P.P.

2. The instant criminal revision is preferred against the judgment dated 04th April, 2016 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 97 of 2015 by the learned Dist. & Addl. Sessions Judge-XIII, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder, the learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the present petitioner dated 23.05.2015 passed in Keredari P.S. Case No. 55/2010 (G.R. No. 2599/10 and T.R. No. 200/15) by the learned J.M., 1ST Class, Hazaribag, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Sections 323/149 , 341/149, 504/149 & 353/149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 15 days under Section 341/149 of the IPC, S.I. for 1 year under Section 353/149 of the IPC, S.I. for 6 months under Section 323/149 and S.I. for 1 year under Section 504/149 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual Matrix:-

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this case is based upon the self-statement of the informant Raghwendra Kumar Singh, A.G.M. of NTPC Coal Mines Project, Hazaribag stating inter alia therein that on 17.08.2010, a resident project allotted by the Government and constructed by the NTPC was being inaugurated by the representative of the Government Dist. Administration. The informant and other local agent were also present there. It is alleged that M.L.A. Yogendra Sao and others came and started abusing and assaulting the informant. It is further alleged that one Leeladhar Sao assaulted the informant with Fat and Fist. The matter was reported to Police and F.I.R. was lodged.

4. On the basis of the self-statement of the informant, Keredari P.S. Case No. 55 of 2010 was registered for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 353, 427, 504, 506 of the IPC against Yogendra Sao, Leeladhar Sao and thirteen other accused persons.

5. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken against five accused persons namely Liladhar, Rabindra Kumar Gupta, Mahabir Sao, Naro Tiwar and Prabhu Mahto keeping the investigation pending against rest of the accused persons and the case record was transferred to the J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribag for trial and disposal.

6. The supplementary charge-sheet was also submitted by the I.O. for the aforesaid offence against Yogendra Sao, Mukesh Sao and Dildar Ansari and the case was amalgamated with the first case transferred to the J.M. 1st Class for trial and disposal. The charges were read over to the accused persons in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In the course of trial, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution :-

P.W.-1 Ram Uday Sharma

P.W.-2 Binay Kumar

P.W.-3 Pravesh Chandra Sinha (I.O.)

P.W.-4 Raghwendra Kumar Singh (Informant)

P.W.-5 Prakash Kumar Upadhayay

P.W.-6 Ayub Ansari

P.W.-7 Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Tiwari

8. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution:-

Ext.-1 Registration and Endorsement on written report

Ext.-1/1 Written Report

Ext.-2 Signature of Formal F.I.R.

9. On the other hand, Defence has also examined two witnesses namely:-

D.W.-1 Ranjeet Das

D.W.-2 S.K. Kant

10. Apart from oral testimony, no documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence. The case of defence as recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that they are innocent. Accused Mahabir Saw stated that he is innocent and not named in the F.I.R. Accused Narayan Tiwari stated that he was not present at the place of occurrence on the date of occurrence. Accused Dildar Ansari ,accused Liladhar, accused Mukesh Sao and Rabindra Kumar Gupta have also denied their presence. Accused Yogendra Sao has stated that he has not assaulted anyone, he has falsely been implicated under the conspiracy and is innocent.

11. The le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J
Yogendra Saw @ Yogendra Sao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 831 of 2016

Mere presence as a public figure at a protest, without any evidence of overt act, instigation, or common intention, cannot sustain a conviction for offences under Sections 323/149, 341/149, 504/149 & 353/149 IPC.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a conviction under Section 149 IPC be upheld without evidence of overt act or common intention?

5. Does the acquittal of the co-accused who committed the actual assault affect the conviction of the accused with no overt act?

6. What is the scope of revisional court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2846

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHIPradeep Kumar Srivastava, JYogendra Saw @ Yogendra Sao – AppellantVersusThe State of Jharkhand – RespondentCr. Revision No. 831 of 2016

Mere presence as a public figure at a protest, without any evidence of overt act, instigation, or common intention, cannot sustain a conviction for offences under Sections 323/149, 341/149, 504/149 & 353/149 IPC.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a conviction under Section 149 IPC be upheld without evidence of overt act or common intention?

5. Does the acquittal of the co-accused who committed the actual assault affect the conviction of the accused with no overt act?

6. What is the scope of revisional court to interfere with concurrent findings of fact?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J
Yogendra Saw @ Yogendra Sao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Revision No. 831 of 2016