LAWS(P&H)-2017-9-232

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. BRAHAM SINGH @ BRAHMA

Decided On September 25, 2017
STATE OF HARYANA Appellant
V/S
Braham Singh @ Brahma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While deciding Criminal Appeal No.D-235-DB-2011 (State of Haryana v. Braham Singh @ Brahma son of Bakhtawar Singh, resident of village Dhamar, Police Station Sadar Rohtak), a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated September 20, 2013 , allowed the said appeal, set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak and held the respondent guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC for commission of murder of his wife Meena and consequently sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The respondent was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for commission of murder of Raju (deceased). All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) After convicting the respondent, as mentioned above, the Division Bench proceeded to determine the quantum of compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C., 1973 and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,12,000/- to the legal representatives of Raju (deceased). The operative part of the order reads as follows:

(3.) It further appears from the record that the respondent had challenged the order of the sentence and the compensation passed by this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and leave was granted after condoning the delay on September 21, 2015. It further appears that in the absence of any stay against recovery of fine, the matter was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, for effecting the recovery of compensation amount from the respondent. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, obtained a report from the Collector, Rohtak and it was found that there is no movable or immovable property in the name of the respondent Braham Singh @ Brahma and, thus, no recovery could be made from him. On consideration of that report, the Division bench of this Court passed the following order on January 22, 2016:-