JUDGMENT K.S.Garewal, J 1. Ranjit Singh (65) of Niwajnagar, Police Station, Narnaul, had two sons, Raj Kumar @ Raju ( 28) and Krishan Kumar (20). Ranjit Singh's sons were married to two sisters Sharmila and Meera, daughters of Surat Singh (PW-7) of Bhurthana. 2. The present case relates to the dowry death of Krishan Kumar's wife Meera. The couple had been married on June 22, 1991. On September 7, 1994, Meera died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation. Krishan Kumar, Raj Kumar @ Raju and Ranjit Singh were tried for murder but found guilty by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, on September 28, 1998 under Section 304-B and 498A IPC. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed Criminal Appeal No. 519 DB of 1998. 3. Meera deceased was married Krishan Kumar on June 22, 1991 according to Hindu rites and customs, on the same day Meera's sister Sharmila married Krishan Kumar's brother Raj Kumar @ Raju. After one year, gauna ceremony of both the sisters were performed together. Thereafter, Meera joined her husband. But soon started complaining that her husband harassed her and also beat her. He would demand a scooter or the price of a scooter from her parents. 4. Meera's father Surat Singh met Krishan Kumar's father Ranjit Singh and told him that he is a poor person and had nothing whatever to give. Whatever he had, he had already given to them. Thereupon Ranjit Singh replied that his son Krishan Kumar was disobedient and he has no concern with him. 5. Krishan Kumar also twice visited Surat Singh's house a month before the occurrence, Krishan Kumar also beat Surat Singh's older daughter Sharmila and snatched Rs. 500/-from her, and threatened her with death to keep her quiet. 6. Surat Singh came to Niwajnagar to take Sharmila back. At that time Sharmila informed him about the above occurrence. 5-6 days before the occurrence, Raj Kumar @ Raju had come to Bhurthala to take Sharmila with him. She was sent with Raj Kumar @ Raju but when they reached Kosli railway station, Raju asked Sharmila what she had brought from her parents. When Sharmila replied that she has brought nothing but clothes Raju abandoned her at station. Surat Singh came to know and brought his daughter home. 7. She was sent with Raj Kumar @ Raju but when they reached Kosli railway station, Raju asked Sharmila what she had brought from her parents. When Sharmila replied that she has brought nothing but clothes Raju abandoned her at station. Surat Singh came to know and brought his daughter home. 7. On September 7, 1994 at 3.30 p.m. three unknown persons, whose names Surat Singh did not know but whom he could recognize, came to his village and asked that Sharmila be sent with them because Meera had died. When Surat Singh asked the cause of death, he was informed that Meera had died due to a heart attack. Surat Singh informed his brothers Dhan Singh, Ram Kishan but they in turn told Surat Singh that Meera had not died of a heart attack but she had been killed. Thereupon Surat Singh alongwith his wife, Meera's aunt (Mausi), Ram Kishan, Dhan Singh and Sarpanch Surinder Singh reached Niwajnagar at 5.30 p.m. They saw Meera lying dead in a room, there were bluish marks of strangulation on the neck. Surat Singh was convinced that Meera was killed by the accused for not fullfilling the demand of a scooter. Surat Singh lodged a complaint before the Police Station Sadar, Narnaul which was entered at 11.50 a.m. on September 8, 1995 in the DDR . 8. Inspector Arun Singh Nehra (PW-9), SHO, Police Station, Narnaul, on receiving the information of Meera's death applied to SDM, Narnaul for an inquiry by the Magistrate into the cause of death. Thereupon, SDM, Narnaul, conducted an inquiry under Section 176 Cr.P.C. She inspected the dead body which was lying at the spot. Recorded the statements of Ranjit Singh and Krishan Kumar and came to the conclusion that Meera's death was not natural, rather she had been killed. There were deep marks of strangulation on the neck which was evidence that Meera had been murdered by strangulation with the help of a rope. The report of SDM was sent to the District Magistrate for further action. 9. It was on the basis of the SDM's report that a second statement of Surat Singh was recorded that formed the basis of FIR, registered against the accused, on September 9, 1994 at 6.15 p.m. under Section 304-B/498-A IPC. 10. The report of SDM was sent to the District Magistrate for further action. 9. It was on the basis of the SDM's report that a second statement of Surat Singh was recorded that formed the basis of FIR, registered against the accused, on September 9, 1994 at 6.15 p.m. under Section 304-B/498-A IPC. 10. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted at General Hospital, Narnaul, by a Medical Board consisting of Dr. K.K. Yadav, Dr. Vijay Singh Yadav and Dr. Usha Chhakkar. The post-mortem was done at 4 p.m. on September 9, 1994. The Medical Board recorded the following injuries:- “1. There was an abrasion of 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the neck, 1.2 cm below and lateral to the left end of the ligature mark. Oozed blood was dried. 2. An abrasion simicicular 1 cm x 0.2 cms, 1.5 cms above the injury No.1 was present. Oozed blood was dried over it. 3. An abrasion 0.8 cm x 0.3 cm was present on the right side of the neck. 2 cms away from the right end of the ligature mark. Oozed blood was dried. 4. Multiple abrasions six number sizes varies from 1 x 0.5 cms to 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm were present on the front of right elbow. Oozed blood was dried over it. 5. An abrasion of 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm was present on the posterior of the left elbow.” In the opinion of the Board, death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 11. Investigation was commenced in right earnest on September 5.11.1994. Accused Krishan Kumar and Ranjit Singh were produced before Sub Inspector Tota Ram (PW-10) on September 14, 1994 and were taken into custody. Krishan Kumar was interrogated on September 15, 1994 and he revealed that he had hidden the rope under a trunk. On his disclosure, the rope recovered on the following day. The dowry articles were also recovered from the house of the accused. Raj Kumar @ Raju was arrested on September 18, 1994. 12. After completion of the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. At the trial, charges were framed under Section 498-A, 302 IPC (Krishan and Ranjit) 302/34 IPC (Raj Kumar), to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13. Raj Kumar @ Raju was arrested on September 18, 1994. 12. After completion of the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. At the trial, charges were framed under Section 498-A, 302 IPC (Krishan and Ranjit) 302/34 IPC (Raj Kumar), to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13. The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Dr. K.K. Yadav (PW-1), Smt. Shashi Kanta Sarwan (PW-5), Ram Chander (PW-6), Surat Singh (PW-7), Sharmila (PW-8), Inspector Arun Singh Nehra (PW-9) and Sub Inspector Tota Ram (PW-10). 14. The accused were examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In these statements, the accused admitted the relationship but denied other items of the prosecution evidence. According to Krishan Kumar, he and his father were arrested on September 7, 1994 and had been falsely implicated. 15. When called upon to enter defence, the accused examined Shish Ram (DW-1) and Narasi Ram @ Nar Singh (DW-2). Shish Ram (DW-1) testified that he alongwith Ranjit had gone to Umrabad ki dhani on September 7, 1994 to purchase barley from Narain Singh (sic). They returned at 12.30 noon. Witness had accompanied Ranjit back to their village. On reaching house, Ranjit had called his son Krishan but there was no response. When Ranjit entered the house he saw Meera lying dead on the floor. Krishan had reached the house at about 2/3.00 p.m. The parents of the deceased had reached at about 5 p.m. Narasi Ram (DW-2) testified that Ranjit and Shish Ram had come to him on September 7, 1994 at 7.30 a.m. Shish Ram had bought 8 bags of barleys while Ranjit had bought one bag of barley. The barleys were loaded on a camel cart and the two of them had left his house at 11.30 a.m. 16. The learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, accepted the prosecution case, disregarded the alibi of Ranjit Singh and found all the three accused guilty under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC and all the three were convicted under these provisions and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. 17. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, Surat Singh (PW-7) in his original complaint dated September 8, 1994 (exhibit PL) had given a very brief statement. 17. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, Surat Singh (PW-7) in his original complaint dated September 8, 1994 (exhibit PL) had given a very brief statement. Surat Singh had mentioned in the complaint, which was entered in the DDR, that on September 7, 1994 on receipt of information, his brothers Dhan Singh, Ram Kishan and some other persons had gone to village Niwajnagar. Meera was found dead with marks of strangulation on the neck. He suspected that it was due to non-fullfillment of the demand of a scooter or payment of the price of a scooter, that Krishan etc. had killed his daughter. He had not suspected anything specific against Ranjit Singh and Raj Kumar @ Raju. 18. It was after the inquest by SDM and registration of FIR (exhibit PJ) that the names of Ranjit Singh and Raj Kumar @ Raju were mentioned as accused. It was in FIR that Surat Singh had revealed that his daughter Meera was killed by Krishan Kumar, Ranjit Singh and Raj Kumar @ Raju, for not fullfilling the demand of a scooter or for not paying the price of the scooter. 19. The second point which the learned counsel canvassed was that Surat Singh categorically stated that when he met Ranjit Singh after the demand for the scooter was raised for the first time, Ranjit Singh told him that his son Krishan did not obey him and that he was not concerned with him. From the above two very important statements, exhibits PL and PJ, the learned counsel tried to get Ranjit Singh and Krishan Kumar excluded from the case. 20. A brief resume of Surat Singh's evidence is necessary to properly determine the real circumstances preceding Meera's death. Surat Singh was examined as PW-7 and he described that his daughters Sharmila and Meera were married to Raj Kumar @ Raju and Krishan on June 22, 1991. One Lal Singh had been mediator in the matrimonial alliance between the two families. The gauna ceremony was performed a year after the marriage. On a visit home Meera had told the family that her husband Krishan used to harass her. She also informed that Raj Kumar @ Raju and Ranjit Singh also harassed her. The accused persons had raised a demand for a scooter. Surat Singh had pleaded that they should not demand a scooter but should keep Meera nicely. On a visit home Meera had told the family that her husband Krishan used to harass her. She also informed that Raj Kumar @ Raju and Ranjit Singh also harassed her. The accused persons had raised a demand for a scooter. Surat Singh had pleaded that they should not demand a scooter but should keep Meera nicely. Krishan had also stated that he would not visit Meera's parental home unless her demand for the scooter was met. Surat Singh further described how Krishan snatched Rs. 500/-from Sharmila and threatened to kill her. He had also been informed by Meera that the three accused had beaten her for her inability to meet the demand. All this had been told to him when he met Meera about 25 days before the occurrence. Surat Singh further went on to describe how Raj Kumar @ Raju had abandoned Sharmila at the Railway Station Kosli. 21. When Surat Singh was cross-examined, it was brought out that many things he had testified in the court had not been revealed by him either in FIR (Ex. PJ) or in DDR ( Ex. PL). Nothing of note was elicited by the defence in Surat Singh's cross-examination. 22. Sharmila (PW-8) was Meera's sister, Surat Singh's daughter and Raj Kumar @ Raju's wife. She testified on the same lines of her father. Her cross-examination did not reveal anything important which may help the accused. Therefore, we are left with two very damaging testimonies of Surat Singh (PW-7) and Sharmila (PW-8). There is also the inquest report of Smt. Shashi Kanta Sarwan, SDM, Narnaul, based on the statements of the witnesses recorded by her and which had then led to the registration of the case. The medical evidence based on post-mortem at 4 p.m. on September 8, 1994 fixed the time of death as 24-36 hours earlier. This would mean that the deceased was strangled between 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. on September 7, 1994. The time between injury and death was only a few minutes. 23. In the present case, there was evidence of persistent demands for a scooter from the deceased, not only by Krishan Kumar but also by his brother Raj Kumar @ Raju and their father Ranjit Singh. These demands were brought to the notice of Ranjit Singh by Surat Singh but the demands did not cease. On one of the occasions, Krishan Kumar had snatched Rs. These demands were brought to the notice of Ranjit Singh by Surat Singh but the demands did not cease. On one of the occasions, Krishan Kumar had snatched Rs. 500/-from Sharmila, so desperate was his need for money. On another occasion, Sharmila was abandoned at a Railway Station by her husband Raj Kumar @ Raju when he discovered that Sharmila had not brought anything from her parents. 24. Two sisters married to two brothers should have brought double happiness to Ranjit Singh's family but harassment of one leading to her death destroyed the matrimonial life of the sister as well. Medieval values, failure to adjust to modern life and a constant demand for a scooter from wife and father-in-law were the bane of the family. Evidence was sufficient to hold all the three accused guilty of dowry death of Meera daughter of Surat Singh. The death has occurred within 7 years of marriage. There was persistent demand for scooter soon before the death. Although death was neither by fire nor in mysterious circumstances but on account of strangulation, yet the accused were convicted under Section 304-B and not under Section 302 IPC. 25. However, we feel that Krishan Kumar is the main accused for having committed dowry death of his wife. Therefore, he was justly convicted under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. However, as regards, Ranjit Singh and Raj Kumar @ Raju we feel they did not deserve life imprisonment under Section 304-B IPC. Ends of justice would have been amply served if they were sentenced to the minimum term prescribed by law, 7 years RI. 26. The accused were arrested in September, 1994, remained in custody till their conviction and after about 7 years, they were released on bail on October 23, 2001. Therefore, the accused-appellants have served approximately 7 years sentence. 27. We feel justice would be done if the sentence awarded to Ranjit Singh and Raj Kumar @ Raju is reduced under Section 304-B IPC to the period already undergone by them. However, their conviction under Section 498A IPC is upheld. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 28. We are of the opinion that this is a fit case in which an order should be passed to pay compensation to the complainant Surat Singh for Crl. Appeal No. 519 DB of 1998 the dowry death of his daughter Meera. However, their conviction under Section 498A IPC is upheld. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 28. We are of the opinion that this is a fit case in which an order should be passed to pay compensation to the complainant Surat Singh for Crl. Appeal No. 519 DB of 1998 the dowry death of his daughter Meera. Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. enables the Court to award compensation where sentence has been imposed of which fine does not form a part. In cases under Section 304B IPC, there is no provision for imposing sentence of fine but dowry death of a young woman certainly requires to be compensated. The bride's parents had given birth to her, raised her, found a suitable (?) match for her, spent considerable money at the wedding. There is not only loss of their daughter but also monetary loss as well. Such loss must be compensated. It is indeed surprising that in cases of dowry death, Courts cannot impose a sentence of fine but the Courts are not powerless to award compensation because Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. entitles the court to award compensation. 29. The Supreme Court has held in Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka 2008 (3) RCR (Criminal) 666 that “the power vested in the Appellate Court or the High Court or the Court of Sessions (in revision) to award compensation under sub-section (3) of Section 357 Cr.P.C. is wide and is in addition to any other sentence which may be awarded on conviction of a person.” 30. The Court had relied on an earlier judgment in Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal 394: (1988) 4 SCC 551, wherein it was observed “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. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system.” 31. Lastly, in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. 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.” 31. Lastly, in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. & Anr 2007 (2) RCR (Crl.) 636: 2007 (2) RAJ 424: (2007) 6 SCC 528, it was held as under:- “The purpose of imposition of fine and/or grant of compensation to a great extent must be considered having the relevant factors there for in mind. It may be compensating the person in one way or the other. The amount of compensation sought to be imposed, thus, must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Before issuing a direction to pay compensation, the capacity of accused to pay the same must be judged. A fortiori, an enquiry in this behalf even in a summary way may be necessary. Some reasons, which may not be very elaborate, may also have to be assigned; the purpose being that whereas the power to impose fine is limited and direction to pay compensation can be made for one or the other factors enumerated out of the same; but sub-Section (3) of Section 357 does not impose any such limitation and thus, power there under should be exercised only in appropriate cases. Such a jurisdiction cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of a judge.” 32. Having regard to the facts of the present case and the provision of Section 357 (3) we hereby impose compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/-to be paid equally by the three accused-appellants, shall be paid within three months. In this case compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/-has been awarded for the dowry death of the complainant's daughter. Meera had died in 1994. By now the family must have overcome the grief but it may be recalled that Meera's sister's marriage was wrecked by Meera's dowry death. Therefore, Surat Singh was left with a dead daughter and an abandoned daughter. 33. Compensation to be effective must be given immediately. In Krishan and another Versus State of Haryana Crl. Appeal No. 418 DB of 2000 decided by the Full Bench on May 9, 2006, the subject of victim compensation was dealt with in detail. Statistics had been gathered and it was revealed that in 2004-2005 the State of Haryana had recovered approximately Rs. 9.37 crores as fines. In Krishan and another Versus State of Haryana Crl. Appeal No. 418 DB of 2000 decided by the Full Bench on May 9, 2006, the subject of victim compensation was dealt with in detail. Statistics had been gathered and it was revealed that in 2004-2005 the State of Haryana had recovered approximately Rs. 9.37 crores as fines. How much amount out of this was paid by the State of Haryana as compensation to victims is not known. We are aware that the victim compensation has not at all developed. Victims should receive compensation within 2-3 months of the occurrence, irrespective of the fate of the case. 34. Be that as it may, award of Rs. 1,05,000/-as compensation is to be recovered from the accused. If a victim compensation scheme had been in place, the victim of this tragic case would have received compensation within 2-3 months of the occurrence and the accused on conviction could have been burdened with the payment of that amount to the State. The State of Haryana would have lost nothing, the victims would have got the compensation, ultimately paid by the accused. 35. We would like to suggest that the State of Haryana should develop a scheme of victim compensation. Compensation should be assessed and paid, within three months of the occurrence, to eligible victims out of the crores of rupees of fines recovered by criminal courts which fill the coffers of the treasury but get diverted to the purposes unrelated to criminal justice. 36. In the present case, compensation, if recovered, shall be paid to the complainant Surat Singh (PW-7). In default of payment, the State shall be entitled to recover the compensation from the accused/appellants for onward payment to the complainant, by resorting to the provisions of Sections 421 to 424 Cr.P.C. 37. Appeal of Krishan Kumar is dismissed in entirety but he shall also have to pay his share of compensation of Rs. 35,000/-, as directed above. Appeal dismissed.