Back
acquits ex-Congress minister Yogendra Sao in 2010 protest assault case
The has acquitted former Congress minister and MLA Yogendra Sao in a criminal case stemming from a 2010 protest during the inauguration of an project office in Hazaribag, finding that there was no specific evidence that he had assaulted anyone or instigated the gathering. The Single Judge Bench of Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava set aside the of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, which had convicted Sao for offences under .
The backdrop: A protest at an inauguration
The case originated from an incident on , when a project office constructed by was being inaugurated in Hazaribag. According to the prosecution, the informant—an Assistant General Manager of Coal Mines Project—and other officials were present as the district administration representative inaugurated the building. It was alleged that Sao and several others arrived and started abusing and assaulting the informant. The FIR specifically named another accused, Leeladhar Sao, as the one who assaulted the informant with fists.
On this basis, registered FIR No. 55/2010 against Yogendra Sao, Leeladhar Sao, and 13 others for offences under . After investigation, charge sheets were filed, and the case proceeded to trial. The convicted Sao and sentenced him to one year's simple imprisonment under , six months under , and 15 days under , with all sentences running concurrently. His conviction was upheld by the in , prompting Sao to approach the High Court in revision.
Arguments before the High Court
Senior Advocate , representing Sao, contended that the petitioner's presence at the spot was coincidental—he had gone there to protest the inauguration, not with any to assault or insult a public servant. Tripathi argued that all other accused had been acquitted by the trial court, and Sao was convicted solely because he was a sitting MLA and "representative of the people." He pointed out that Leeladhar Sao, against whom the FIR contained a specific allegation of assault, had been acquitted on the same set of evidence. Tripathi submitted that there was no or attributed to Sao, rendering the findings of the courts below and liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor defended the concurrent judgments, arguing that the evidence directly showed abuse, assault, and nuisance caused by the petitioner, and that both courts had correctly appreciated the record.
Court's analysis: No , no conviction
After carefully examining the oral testimony of seven prosecution witnesses and two defence witnesses, the High Court found that none of the witnesses attributed any specific to Yogendra Sao. The Court noted that most witnesses deposed that a crowd gathered to protest the office construction, and that the MLA was identified as a public figure present at the scene—but no one testified that he assaulted or instigated anyone.
The Court highlighted that PW-1, an
Assistant Manager, specifically stated that
"M.L.A had not assaulted anyone."
PW-4, the informant himself, did not identify any accused in court and only said he was "pushed by Yogendra Sao" during cross-examination. The Court observed that the evidence was far too weak to sustain a conviction, especially when the co-accused who was specifically alleged to have assaulted the informant had been acquitted.
In a key passage, the Court remarked:
"I also find that the M.L.A. Yogendra Sao being the public figure has been identified by most of the witnesses but no has been attributed against him by any of the witnesses."
The Court further held that the trial court and appellate court had committed a
"
in appreciating the material evidence available on record,"
and that their conclusion of guilt was
"absolutely
and
available on record."
The verdict
Allowing the , Justice Srivastava set aside the judgments of the courts below and acquitted Yogendra Sao of all charges. Since Sao was on , he was discharged from his bond liabilities, and his were also discharged. The court directed that the trial court records be transmitted back.
The underscores the principle that at a protest site—even as a political leader—cannot lead to conviction without specific evidence of overt acts or . The High Court's decision serves as a reminder that of guilt are not immune from scrutiny when they are based on a .
