JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. The present appeal has been filed by the accused/appellants, Harisingh and Narayan have been convicted for the offence under sections 376/511 read with section 109, Indian Penal Code. Kamalsingh has been convicted u/s 376/511, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 3 months. Each of the appellants Harisingh and Narayan have also been sentenced to R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 3 months. The prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 8th and 9th October, 1983, the prosecutrix Kumari Najma Rizvi was sleeping in her house after taking her meals. At about 12.00 O'clock, accused/appellants knocked the door of her house. The prosecutrix enquired as to the names. The accused disclosed that they were Kamalsingh, Harisingh and Narayan. Complainant asked what was the purpose of their visit. The accused absused and asked her to open the door and tried to open it. The prosecutrix ran away jumping out from the window in the petticoat and kurta. All the three accused persons chased her and caught hold of the prosecutrix near the house of Dinesh Seth. They caught hold of her and dragged by catching hold of her hair and hand and she was taken behind the quarter of the procecutrix. Accused Harisingh was carrying a torch. Accused Narayan tore petticoat of the prosecutrix and removed the underwear she was wearing. Accused Kamalsingh put knife over the neck and asked if the prosecutrix will cry, she will be killed. Kamal asked Harisingh and Narayan to catch hold of the prosecutrix and he would perform the sexual intercourse. On that, Harisingh and Narayan caught hold of her and Kamal sat in between her legs. The prosecutrix gave leg blow. Irked by it, accused Kamal inflicted fist injuries over the mouth of the prosecutrix. On that, Hari asked Kamal to catch hold of the prosecutrix. He told that he would perform the act and tried to perform the sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix bit in the hand of Hari. On resistance by prosecutrix, all the accused persons in anger gave beating to the prosecutrix and dashed her head over the ground. She became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found herself totally wet. He told that he would perform the act and tried to perform the sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix bit in the hand of Hari. On resistance by prosecutrix, all the accused persons in anger gave beating to the prosecutrix and dashed her head over the ground. She became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found herself totally wet. She reached the house of Ramu Ahir to cover her body, but Ramu Ahir was frightened. He asked her to go elsewhere otherwise the accused would beat him. On the repeated request made by the prosecutrix, a cloth was given by Ramu by which she covered herself. The villagers assembled in the morning. She disclosed the incident to Suresh, Prahlad Nai, Chowkidar, Nanabhai Patel etc. She went along with Pawan Pathak to lodge the report which is Ex. P/12. Investigation Officer recovered tom kurta (lady shirt) (Ex. P/13). Spot map was prepared which is Ex. P/15. Torn petticoat was seized as per seizure memo Ex. P/16. On 9th October, 1983, the prosecutrix was referred for medical examination. Dr. Ali examined her. The report of Dr. Ali is Ex. P-4/a. Thereafter, on 10-10-1983, woman Assistant Surgeon Dr. Tiwari examined her and submitted her report Ex. P/11. The doctor opined that attempt was made to commit the sexual intercourse. The accused persons were arrested on 28-10-1983 at Piparia vide arrest memo Ex. P/1. Knife was recovered from Narayan pursuant to the memorandum u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. Seizure memo is Ex. P/14. Seizure memo of knife is Ex. P/10. Torch was recovered from Hari Singh pursuant to the information contained in the memo Ex. P/8 vide seizure memo Ex. P/9. Petticoat, underwear of the prosecutrix and vaginal smear slides were sent for chemical examination. The report is Ex. P/17. The accused abjured the guilt and they have contended that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The learned counsel Shri Surendra Singh for the appellants submitted that the act of the accused/appellants does not fall within the purview of section 376/511, Indian Penal Code. At the most, the case would fall within section 354, Indian Penal Code. He has further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1983. About 17 years have passed thereafter, and sentence of 5 years R.I. is too harsh. The learned counsel placed reliance on Malkiat Singh Vs. At the most, the case would fall within section 354, Indian Penal Code. He has further submitted that the incident took place in the year 1983. About 17 years have passed thereafter, and sentence of 5 years R.I. is too harsh. The learned counsel placed reliance on Malkiat Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babulal, . He has also placed reliance on Damodar Behera and Another and Sagar Barik Vs. State of Orissa, to submit that the evidence is lacking to show that accused were determined to have sexual intercourse in all events. Hence, the case would fall in the category of indecent assault and not attempt to commit the rape. Another decision on which the learned counsel has placed reliance is Hari Mohapatra and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Others, so as to contend that the preparation alone does not fall within expression "attempt". Reliance was on the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babulal, . The prosecution examined 9 witnesses. No witness was examined in defence. P.K. Bose (PW-1) has proved the arrest memo of the accused. Ramgopal (PW-2), head constable has received slides and cloths vide Inquest P/2 and P/3. Dr. M.K. Upadhyaya (P.W. 4) had medically examined the accused persons. Dr. (Smt.) Sushila Tiwari. (PW-6) and Dr. Ahmad Ali (PW-3) had medically examined Ku. Nazma respectively on 9-10-1983 and 10-10-1983. Ku. Nazma has been examined as PW-7. The two other witnesses examined are (i) R.P. Singh, Sub-Inspector of police station Budhni and (ii) Dhirendra Bajpai, station house officer, incharge of police station, Shahaganj. Ku. Nazma Rizvi was examined by Dr. Ahmad Ali (PW-3). His report is Ex. P/4. The prosecutrix was physically examined by Dr. Ali on 9-10-1983 the very next day. As many as 7 injuries were found on her person. - (1) Sharp wound, slightly obliquely placed on left side of upper lip. Watery mucose discharge present in wound, edges are indurated and also tender 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. (2) Whole face is badly swollen, spreaded differently and both lids of both eyes are badly swollen and she is unable to open the eyes. Sub conjunctival haemorrage present in both the eyes. (3) An abrasion on scalp, behind the left ear, over mastoid region of scalp 1 cm x 1 cm x superface. (2) Whole face is badly swollen, spreaded differently and both lids of both eyes are badly swollen and she is unable to open the eyes. Sub conjunctival haemorrage present in both the eyes. (3) An abrasion on scalp, behind the left ear, over mastoid region of scalp 1 cm x 1 cm x superface. (4) Abrasion on mucose membrane of inner aspect of both the lips. (5) Multiple abrasion present all over the face. (6) Redish bruise over the Rt. side of back below the angle of the Rt. scapula-2 cm x 1 cm. (7) Abrasion on Rt. knee joint at its anterior aspect 3 cm x 3 cm area. She also complained of pain in many parts of the body, on both the thighs and both breast. The doctor has opined that the injury No. 1 was simple in nature and was caused by hard and sharp object. Injury No. 2 was advised for X-ray and nature was to be determined after X-ray was done. All other injuries were simple and could be caused by hard and blunt object. She was referred to the Woman Assistant Surgeon, Budhni for examination of her private part. Dr. Ahmad Ali (PW-3) has proved his report (Ex. P/4). His signature in the portion 'A' to 'A'. The doctor has stated that he knew the complainant. She was working as Nurse under Budhni Centre. Shahganj Hospital is also under the said center. He has denied the suggestion that he had prepared the report subsequently and he was sure that the swelling was not result of excessive weeping. He has further deposed that injury No. 6 could be caused if a persons falls with force. The injury No. 7 could be caused by fall. The prosecutrix was further examined by woman Assistant Surgeon Dr. Smt. Sushila Tiwari of district hospital, Sehore. Doctor has found that on her person, there was lacerated wound at the posterior part of vagina 2 mm x 2 mm in diameter, blood was oozing through it. Hymen was ruptured, P.V. could not be done due to severe pain. Two vaginal smears slides were prepared, sealed and handed over to the constable. The doctor has opined that rape had been attempted. For age verification, Radiological examination was advised. Dr. (Smt.) Sushila Tiwari (PW-6) has proved her report (Ex. P/11). Hymen was ruptured, P.V. could not be done due to severe pain. Two vaginal smears slides were prepared, sealed and handed over to the constable. The doctor has opined that rape had been attempted. For age verification, Radiological examination was advised. Dr. (Smt.) Sushila Tiwari (PW-6) has proved her report (Ex. P/11). She has deposed that lacerated wound was near posterior part of vagina and she has mentioned the size as per her estimation, the injury was of small size and could not be measured by tape. Deapth could not be measured because it was in the shape of abrasion. It could be caused by nails. The medical examination of the accused was performed by Dr. M.K. Upadhyaya (PW-4) on 30-10-1983, on the person of the accused/appellant Narayan Singh. Doctor found as many as 8 injuries. Out of them, 5 were contusions, two were abrasions. The injuries were found over right hand little finger and left fore-arm. Three contusions over right and two contusions over left thigh. The doctor opined that Injury No. 1,2 and 3 were caused more than 8 days earlier and Injury No. 4 to 8 were caused within 24 hours. The medical report of accused Narayan is Ex. P/5. Kamalsingh was also medically examined. Fourteen injuries were found on the person of Kamal Singh. Injury No. 1 was abrasion which was below left clavical. Index finger of the right hand was also having semi healed injury. Other similar injury was found on the dorsal portion of left hand which is an abrasion. An abrasion on the Rt. Knee joint. An abrasion was also found above the right ankle joint. Several injuries were found over the leg on different parts of it, in the from of abrasions. The doctor opined that Injury No. 1 and 3 to 12 were caused more than 8 days prior to the medical examination. Injury No. 13 was caused within 24 hours and disability of non-movement of left elbow was found. The report of medical examination of Kamal Singh is Ex. P/6 on record. Harisingh was also examined on the same day, on 30-10-1983. There were three injuries on his person: (i) An abrasion over left clavical, (ii) one wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the external portion of left hand and (iii) contusion 10 cm x 11/2 cm on the external portion of left thigh. P/6 on record. Harisingh was also examined on the same day, on 30-10-1983. There were three injuries on his person: (i) An abrasion over left clavical, (ii) one wound 1 cm x 1 cm on the external portion of left hand and (iii) contusion 10 cm x 11/2 cm on the external portion of left thigh. Injury No. 2 was found to be more than 8 days old and the injuries No. 1 and 3 were found of recent origin. The report of medical examination of Harisingh is Ex. P/7. The doctor further opined that injuries No. 4 to 8 found over Narayan could be caused by beating by the police. Injury No. 13 and 14 found over Kamalsingh and Injury No. 4 to 8 found over Narayan Singh could be caused by beating by the police with stick. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid medical evidence that prosecutrix was having number of injuries over her face, various parts of body. Her face was swollen. Multiple abrasion was found on her face. Over the right side of back, abrasion was found on knee joint and scalp. The injuries found on her body clearly prove that she was brutally beaten in the incident. She received injury near vagina. The accused/appellants also received some of injuries as opined by the doctor. Ku. Nazma examined as PW-7 has clearly stated that she was residing with her parents in the quarter of primary Health Center. Owing to festival of Id, she went to Bhopal with her parents. After the Id festival, she returned alone to Nander from Bhopal, where she was in service in the Primary Health Centre. She deposed that when she was sleeping in the night, in her quarter, the accused persons came there and asked her to open the door. She enquired from inside. The accused persons started abusing her and told that they had come to molest her. When she did not open the door, the accused persons tried to open the door. When she thought that the door was likely to be broken, she ran away towards village by jumping out from the window. She was crying to help her but nobody came to her rescue. She reached the house of Dinesh Seth. She deposed that the villagers were hearing the cry for help but nobody came for help due to the fear of the accused persons. She was crying to help her but nobody came to her rescue. She reached the house of Dinesh Seth. She deposed that the villagers were hearing the cry for help but nobody came for help due to the fear of the accused persons. When Dinesh Seth came out of his house, Kamalsingh threatened and asked him to go inside. She has deposed that the accused persons caught hold of her hair and dragged her behind the Health Center. Accused Kamal asked Narayan and Hari to catch hold of the complainant and told he would rape her first. Narayan and Hari caught hold of her and gagged her mouth. Accused Kamal sat between her legs. In order to save herself from being raped, she gave a leg blow to Kamal. Thereafter, on her resistance, the accused gave her further beating. She was crying for help. She again gave a leg blow to Narayan and she was again beaten. She has deposed that Kamal was having pistol, Hari was having knife and Narayan was also having some weapon. Hari caused knife injury over her face. She deposed that one of the accused bite her over the cheek, caught hold of her hair and dragged her and dashed her head as she resisted. She became unconscious. After sometime, she regained consciousness. When she became conscious, she was wearing only tom shirt. Other clothes, her petticoat and underwear were removed. The accused persons were not found by her, when she regained consciousness. Thereafter, she went to the house of one Ahir near Dharmashala, she was virtually naked. She then went to the house of Ramu. Ramu advised her to go back to her quarter otherwise, the accused persons kill him. She repeatedly begged the member of the family of Ramu to save her life, Ramu gave some clothes to cover her body. In the morning, she came to the Health Center. All the villagers assembled there. Sarpanch Vijay Singh, Anandsingh, Prahlad Nai etc. were also present. Sarpanch sent her with Chowkidar to board her on the bus. On the way, she met Pawan Guru. She lodged the report in the police station Shahganj, which is Ex. P/12. From the cross-examination, it appears that the complainant knew the accused persons from earlier point of time. She deposed that she had never visited the house of Kamal. Hari is resident of Nandner. On the way, she met Pawan Guru. She lodged the report in the police station Shahganj, which is Ex. P/12. From the cross-examination, it appears that the complainant knew the accused persons from earlier point of time. She deposed that she had never visited the house of Kamal. Hari is resident of Nandner. He used to gamble and had terror in the village. His father Bannu Singh is an influential agriculturist, having three brothers. Pawan Pathak is an Advocate. He had accompanied her to the police station. Chowkidar had refused to accompany her to the police station on the ground that ultimately he had to live in the village. Prosecutrix has further deposed that after the incident, the accused persons met the police. When the police did no arrest the accused persons even after 15-20 days, she thought that the police was siding with the accused persons. There are minor contradictions in the police statement and the statement recorded in the Court. However, there is no material contradiction. The accused persons appear to be influential having terror in the village. It has to be considered first whether it was a case of attempt to commit rape or indecent assault. In the State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Yakub and Others, the meaning of 'attempt' was considered. It has been laid down that "What constitutes an "attempt" is a mixed question of law and fact, depending largely on the circumstances of the particular case. "Attempt" defies a precise and exact definition." In People vs. Anderson, 1 Cal 2nd 687: 37 P 2nd 67 and People vs. Youngs, 122 Mich 292: 81 NW 114, the "attempt" has been defined behind the periphery of preparation. It has been held that "Prepation consists in devising or arranging the means or measures necessary for the commission of the offence and that the attempt is the direct movement towards the commission after the preparation are made." In People vs. Miller (2 Cal 2nd 527: 42 P. 2nd 308: 98 ALR 913), People vs. Mills (178 NY 274: 70 NE 786:98 ALR 918), Jackson vs. State (91 Ala 55: 8 So 773), State of Doran (99 Me 329: 59 A 440), People vs. Youngs (122 Mick 292 : 81 NW 114), Stockes vs. State (92 Miss 415: 46 So 627). State vs. Howell (318 Mo 772: 300 SW 807), State vs. Rains (52 Mont 424: 164 P. 540), State vs. Lung (21 Nev 209: 28 P. 235), State vs. Adder (183 NC 687: 110 SE 650: 22 ALR 219). State vs. Hurley (79 Vt. 28; 64 A 78), and Hicks vs. Commonwealth, 86 Va 223:9 SE 1024, it has been held-- "Mere intention to commit a specified crime does not amount to an attempt. It is also essential that the defendant, with the intent of committing the particular crime, does some overt act adapted to, approximating, and which in the ordinary and likely course of things will result in, the commission thereof." In Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee and Sham Lal Shaw Vs. State of West Bengal, , it has been held that -- A person commits the offence of "attempt to commit a particular offence" when (i) he intends to commit that particular offence, and(ii) he, having made preparation and with the intention to commit the offence, does an act towards its commission; such an act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be an act during the course of committing that offence. In Malkiat Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, , it has been held that. "In order to constitute "an attempt", first, there must be an intention to commit a particular offence, second, some act must have been done which would necessarily have to be done towards the commission of the offence, and. third, such act must be "proximate to the intended result. The measure of proximity is not in relation to time and action but in relation to intention. third, such act must be "proximate to the intended result. The measure of proximity is not in relation to time and action but in relation to intention. In other words, the act must reveal, with reasonable certainty, in conjunction with other facts and circumstances and not necessarily in isolation, an intention, as distinguished from a mere desire or object, to commit the particular offence, though the act by itself may be merely suggestive or indicative of such intention, but, that it must be, that is, it must be indicative or suggestive of the intention." In Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, AIR 1998 SC 386 it has been held that the difference between preparation and an attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination and what is necessary to prove for an offence of an attempt to commit rape has been committed is that the accused has gone beyond die state of preparation. Mere absence of penetration would not absolve him from offence of attempt to commit rape. In Nathu Ram vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SCW 417 , it has been held that an illiterate villager took his daughter-in-law for treatment to a clinic. Doctor told him that he would cure her with the help of his guru, accused, and gave patient some tablets. He called his guru. The patient was asked to lie down on cot behind curtain. Thereafter, doctor asked father-in- law to get hot water from outside. Father-in-law deposed that when he entered clinic with hot water, he found doctor naked and accused in nicker and jersey. The patient was unconscious and her salwar had been half-folded. In this case, the conviction u/s 375 read with section 511 was maintained by the Apex Court. In AIR 1933 1002 (Lahore) , it has been held that the accused caught hold of a girl, threw her down, put sand in her mouth, got on her chest and attempted to have intercourse with her. She resisted and cried and her screams attracted the witnesses on seeing whom accused ran away. It was held that he was guilty of the offence of attempting to commit rape. In Kishor Shrirama Vs. She resisted and cried and her screams attracted the witnesses on seeing whom accused ran away. It was held that he was guilty of the offence of attempting to commit rape. In Kishor Shrirama Vs. State of Maharashtra, , it has been held that while the prosecutrix was carrying tiffin of her husband to his field at the bank of tank, the accused came from behind, caught the portion of her Sari, dragged her inside the bank of the tank, put her on the ground and removed her Sari from her person. The conviction u/s 376/511 for attempting to commit rape on the prosecutrix was maintained. The learned counsel for the accused/appellants has placed reliance on the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babulal, , in which it has been laid down that "for an offence of an attempt to commit rape, the prosecution must establish that it has gone beyond the stage of preparation. The difference between mere preparation and actual attempt to commit an offence consists chiefly in the greater degree of determination." In the above case, in Para 6 of the judgment, it has been observed that "the point of distinction between an offence to commit rape and to commit indecent assault is that there should be some action on the part of the accused which would show that he is just going to have sexual connection with her." In that case, the appearance of the uncle of the girl stopped accused. The accused only made the girl naked. He did not expose nor attempted to expose his private part. In the present case, the prosecutrix has clearly stated that the accused sat on her legs, and she resisted. She bit the hand of the accused and gave leg blow. On this she was beaten by the accused persons. The learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Hari Mohapatra and Another Vs. State of Orissa and Others, in which it has been held that the allegation was that the petitioner after entering inside the room closed the door and molested the victim by squeezing her breast and tried to open her pant. The Orissa High Court placing reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. State of Orissa and Others, in which it has been held that the allegation was that the petitioner after entering inside the room closed the door and molested the victim by squeezing her breast and tried to open her pant. The Orissa High Court placing reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Babulal, , Held - The accused had gone near the victim and tried to seduce her for intercourse, when the victim repelled his advances, he became furious, caught hold of her and assaulted her and fell her down on the ground forcibly and snatched her lugda and thereby made her naked. On hearing the cries of the victim, her uncle came to the spot and accused fled away. Upon these facts, replying upon several decisions, it was observed at page 156 (Para 6) of the section:-- In the present case, as already stated, the accused only made the girl naked. He did not expose nor attempted to expose his private part. For all these reasons, I cannot agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that from the challan or the first information report it was undoubtedly a case of an offence to commit rape The aforesaid decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was distinguished in the decision reported in Sittu Vs. State, , Sittu vs. State. In the Rajasthan case, the accused forcibly made the girl naked and tried repeatedly to force the male organ into her private part despite strong resistance from the victim. In the back-ground of the aforesaid facts, it was held that "the accused had gone much beyond the stage of preparation and the offence committed was one u/s 376/511, Indian Penal Code." In the present case, it is apparent that the accused persons had greater degree of determination. They had come in the night at 12.00 o' clock, asked the complainant to open the door and then tried to force open the door. When she asked the reason to open the door, they stated that they have come to commit sexual intercourse. Due to the fear of the accused persons, she jumped from the window and ran away. They chased her. She cried for help but nobody came to save her. The accused persons caught hold of her hair, dragged her to the back of her quarter. Due to the fear of the accused persons, she jumped from the window and ran away. They chased her. She cried for help but nobody came to save her. The accused persons caught hold of her hair, dragged her to the back of her quarter. The accused persons tore her petticoat, her kurta which she was wearing at that time, and removed the petticoat and underwear. She resisted, but she was caught hold of by two accused persons and in turn, other accused persons tried to commit rape on her. She bit in the hand of the accused and gave leg blow to one who was sitting on her legs. When she resisted, she was beaten by the accused persons. A number of injuries were found on her person. Fist injuries were caused, knife was used and there were many corresponding injuries over her body, even lacerated wound was found near her vagina. Had Ku. Nazma not resisted bravely, certainly she would have been raped. The case narrated by Ku. Nazma is enough to indicate that the accused persons intended to commit the sexual intercourse with her. In such cases, the Supreme Court has considered the impact of section 357 Criminal Procedure Code in Hari Kishan & Hari Kishan Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others, and observe-- 10. Sub-section (1) of section 357 provides power to award compensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused. In this case, we are not concerned with Sub-section (1). We are concerned only with Sub-section (3). It is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. This power was intended to do something to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more then one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by instalments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default. In the present case, the accused/appellants have been convicted and sentenced for their offences to R.I. for 5 years. In the opinion of this Court, the prosecutrix should be properly compensated. The sentence of imprisonment is reduced by 6 months and instead, the appellants are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The conviction of the accused/appellants is upheld. They shall have to undergo sentence of 41/2 years. In addition, each of the appellants is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (total sum of Rs. 30,000/-) as compensation to complainant Ku. Nazma Rizvi. The amount of fine deposited, if any, shall be computed towards compensation. Final Result : Dismissed