Jharkhand High Court
Sonelata Kisku vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 772 of 2025
With
I.A. No. 11889 of 2025
----------
1.Sonelata Kisku
2.Sonamuni Baski
3.Kanaklata Kisku
4.Premlal Kisku
..... Appellants
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Samual Kisku ..... Respondents
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellants : Mrs. Nitu Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P.
For the Resp.No.2 : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
----------
03/17.10.2025 Heard Mrs. Nitu Sinha, learned counsel
for the appellants, Mrs. Bandana Sinha, learned
counsel for the State and Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned
counsel for the Respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the Informant-
Respondent No.2 has appeared and has prayed for
time to file objection to I.A. No. 11889 of 2025, which
has been objected to by learned counsel for the
appellants. It is submitted that Appellant No.s 1, 2 and 3,
namely Sonelata Kisku, Sonamuni Baski and Kanaklata
Kisku are ladies and their prayer for bail may be
considered.
3. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on
behalf of the Appellants challenging the judgment of
conviction dated 04.08.2025 and sentence dated
06.08.2025, passed by Shri Shesh Nath Singh, learned
Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Trial No. 136 of
2021, arising out of Maheshpur P.S.Case No. 95 of
2020, by which the Appellants, namely Sonelata Kisku,
Sonamuni Baski, Kanaklata Kisku and Premlal Kisku
have been convicted for the offences under Sections
307/34, 323/34, 341/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to
undergo R.I. for Seven (07) years and to pay the fine of
20,000/-, R.I. for One (01) years and to pay the fine of
Rs.1000/- each, R.I. for One (01) month and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each for the offence under Sections 307/34,
323/34 and 341/34 of I.P.C. respectively.
4. As per F.I.R., the appellants are alleged
to have assaulted the Informant and his daughter
causing head injuries to them.
5. This Interlocutory Application has been
filed on behalf of the appellants for grant of bail.
6. On the other hand, learned A.P.P.
opposed the prayer for bail.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent
No.2 has submitted that there is direct allegation
against the Appellant No.4, namely Premlal Kisku for
assaulting the Informant and his daughter, who had
sustained head injuries. It is submitted that the
P.W.3, namely Samuel Kisku is the Informant and
P.W.4, namely Beronika Kisku is the daughter of the
Informant and they are injured persons and they have
fully supported the injuries caused to them on the
head by the appellants. It is submitted that P.W. 2
and P.W.5, namely Marangmai Kisku and Kristina
Murmu respectively and P.W.6, namely Daniel Kisku
had also supported and corroborated the prosecution
case. It is submitted that P.W.9, namely Sanjay
Kumar Jha is a Doctor, who had found injuries on
P.W. 3 and P.W.4, namely Samuel Kisku, i.e. the
Informant and Beronika Kisku respectively and hence
prayer for bail of the appellants may be rejected.
8. Perused the Trial Court Records of this
case and considered the submission of both sides.
9. From the F.I.R. it reveals that it was
Appellant No.4, namely Premlal Kisku, who had
assaulted the Informant and her daughter. Thereafter,
Appellant No.s 1, 2 and 3, namely Sonelata Kisku,
Sonamuni Baski and Kanaklata Kisku are also alleged to
have also assaulted them.
10. From perusal of the Injury report, it
transpires that the concerned Doctor had found
certain injuries on the injured Informant, namely
Samuel Kisku and his daughter, namely Beronika
Kisku respectively, which were as follows:-
11. Injury found on the Informant, namely
Samual Kisku is as follows:-
" (i) Swelling and cut of head 2" X 1 X 1"
(ii) Age of injury within 24 hours.
(iii) Cause of injury hard and rough object,
(iv) Nature of injury is simple"
Injury found on the daughter of the
Informant, namely Beronika Kisku is as follows:-
" (i) Head injury 2" X 1" X 1"
(ii) Age of injury within 24 hours
(iii) Cause of injury hard and blunt object
(iv) Nature of injury is simple
(v) CT Scan shows is simple."
12. It transpires that although both the
Informant and his daughter had sustained head
injuries, but the same were found to be simple in
nature.
13. It transpires that although Appellant
No.s 1, 2, and 3, namely Sonelata Kisku, Sonamuni
Baski and Kanaklata Kisku are females, whereas
Appellant No. 4, namely Premlal Kisku is a male.
14. It appears from the F.I.R. and
deposition of the witnesses that Appellant No.4,
namely Premlal Kisku was armed with Iron rod,
whereas the other appellants were allegedly armed
with Lathi.
It also appears that P.W.9, namely Dr.
Sanjay Kumar Jha has proved the injury report of the
Informant, but actually it was Dr. Vikash Kumar
(deceased) who had examined the injured persons and
it has also been admitted by P.W.9, namely Dr. Sanjay
Kumar Jha during his cross-examination.
15. Under the circumstances, the Appellant
No.s 1, 2 and 3, namely Sonelata Kisku, Sonamuni
Baski and Kanaklata Kisku are directed to be released
on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Sessons Judge, Pakur, in connection with Sessons
Trial No. 136 of 2021, arising out of Maheshpur P.S.
Case No. 95 of 2020.
16. So far as prayer for bail made on behalf
of the Appellant No.4, namely Premlal Kisku is
concerned, it transpires that there is direct evidence
against him for assaulting both the Informant and his
daughter on their head. Though the injuries are simple
in nature, but it is on the head of the Informant and
his daughter and hence, prayer for bail made on behalf
of appellant no. 4, namely Premlal Kisku is rejected at
this stage.
17. Thus, I.A. No. 11889 of 2025 is partly
allowed and stands disposed of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
s.m.
