JUDGMENT : 1. The recovery of fine has been stayed vide order dated 27.04.2015. Notice was issued regarding recovery of compensation. 2. The applicants/appellants by way of the present criminal miscellaneous application seek stay of recovery of compensation during pendency of the appeal. 3. The applicants/appellants have been convicted vide order dated 26.02.2015 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC'-for short). By a separate order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27.02.2015, they have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment; besides, pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default thereof undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They have also been sentenced for two years rigorous imprisonment; besides, pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default thereof undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 148 IPC. They have further been sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment; besides, pay a fine of Rs. 4000/- each and in default thereof undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Besides, in terms of Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.'- for short), they have been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each to the legal heirs of deceased Anil @ Bablu @ Manji and Kala @ Kailash. The said amount had been ordered to be recovered from the person and property of the convicts. Necessary recovery warrants have been ordered to be sent to the Collector concerned. 4. Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that the recovery of compensation is liable to be stayed in view of Section 357 (2) Cr.P.C. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and another, 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 636. 5. In response, Mr. 4. Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Advocate, learned Counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that the recovery of compensation is liable to be stayed in view of Section 357 (2) Cr.P.C. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and another, 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 636. 5. In response, Mr. Sandeep Mann, Senior DAG, Haryana learned counsel for the State submits that the payment of compensation to the 'victims' who are legal heirs of the two deceased in the case is not liable to be stayed as that would deprive them of the loss they had suffered on the demise of Anil @ Bablu @ Manji and Kala @ Kailash. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter. 7. The prosecution case is that the Inspector/SHO Ramesh Kumar along with SI Jai Singh, ASI Jagdish Chander and Head Constable Rajesh for carrying out law and order duty on 20.03.2011 reached Dairy Mohalla, Rohtak in a government vehicle, which was being driven by Constable Ajit Singh. They received information from the control room that a fight had occurred at Dairy Mohalla. When the police party reached Dairy Mohalla, the injured it was found had been shifted to Civil Hospital, Rohtak. ASI Jagdish Chander was left at the spot for protecting the place of occurrence. Inspector/SHO Ramesh Kumar obtained the doctor's memo in respect of the injured Phoolpati. It was found that she had been referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Inspector/SHO Ramesh Kumar then reached Police Post PGIMS, Rohtak where he received memo regarding death of Bablu son of Manohar Lal resident of Dairy Mohalla, Rohtak. The Inspector/SHO also received a telephone call from ASI Jagdish that Kailash @ Kala son of Manohar Lal resident of Dairy Mohalla, who was injured had died at the spot and his dead body was lying there. Inspector/SHO Ramesh Kumar obtained opinion about the fitness of the injured Phoolpati to make a statement. The doctor opined that she was fit to make a statement. The statement of Phoolpati complainant was accordingly recorded. The complainant stated that she along with her son Kailash @ Kala and Manji @ Bablu on 20.03.2011 were present at their house. It was the day of Holi festival. The children and ladies were playing Holi in the street. The doctor opined that she was fit to make a statement. The statement of Phoolpati complainant was accordingly recorded. The complainant stated that she along with her son Kailash @ Kala and Manji @ Bablu on 20.03.2011 were present at their house. It was the day of Holi festival. The children and ladies were playing Holi in the street. In the meantime Parsanni (applicant/appellant No.4), Maniya son of appellant No.1-Sunder (applicant/appellant No.1), Sandeep (applicant/appellant No.2) son of sunder and Sunder (applicant/appellant No.1) son of Tarif Singh came from their residential house in the street. Sunny son of Prem Singh, Thanedar of CIA Staff, Rohtak also came in the street. All the youngsters asked her son Kala and Bablu to come out. They held out threats to teach them a lesson regarding the incident of causing injuries to them. The son of the complainant then came in the street and asked them to return to their house as it was a festival. The accused then went to the house of Sunder (applicant/appellant No.1). After sometime Parsanni (applicant/appellant No.4) armed with a 'danda', Maniya armed with a sword, Sunny armed with a sword, Sunder (applicant/appellant No.1) armed with a 'farsa', which was fixed on a wooden plank of a hand pump and Sandeep (applicant/appellant No.2) armed with a 'farsa' came there. Sunder (applicant/appellant No.1) inflicted injuries to Kala @ Kailash son of the complainant with the 'farsa', which hit on his head. Maniya inflicted sword blow on the head of her son Kala @ Kailash. Sandeep (applicant/appellant No.2) inflicted a 'farsa' blow on the head of her son Manji @ Bablu. Sunny gave a sword blow on her head. Parsanni (applicant/appellant No.4) inflicted a 'danda' blow on the right hand of the complainant and she fell down. The assailants caused injuries to them with their weapons. On hearing the noise, Surya Kant son of Pritam and Chottu @ Manjeet son of Mahender and many other persons came there. They tried to save the complainant side. The sons of the complainant namely Kala @ Kailash and Manji @ Bablu died at the spot due to the injuries. The complainant was got admitted in Civil Hospital, Rohtak by their neighbour. She was then referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. They tried to save the complainant side. The sons of the complainant namely Kala @ Kailash and Manji @ Bablu died at the spot due to the injuries. The complainant was got admitted in Civil Hospital, Rohtak by their neighbour. She was then referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. About 10- 12 years earlier, son of Tarif (i.e. father of appellant No.1 - Sunder) had caused injuries to her and in that dispute her son Satte @ Satish was in judicial custody. A scuffle had occurred between the assailants and her son Kala. She and her son had also caused injuries in their self defence. Then the assailants Sunder etc. went to their house along with the weapons. 8. After trial, the applicants/appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the manner as mentioned above. 9. The case relates to death of two sons of the complainant Phoolpati, namely Kala @ Kailash and Manji @ Bablu. In the present case as already noticed, compensation of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded, which is payable to the legal heirs of the deceased Anil @ Bablu @ Manji and Kala @ Kailash. The provisions of Section 357 (2) Cr.P.C. on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants read as under:- "357. Order to pay compensation:- (1) xxxxx (2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal." In terms of the above provision, if the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment is to be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal. The above provisions relates to fine and not to compensation. 10. The Supreme Court in Dilip S. Dahanukar v. Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and another (supra) held that for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, fine can be imposed only in terms of the provisions of the said Act and when fine is not imposed, compensation can be directed to be paid for the loss or injury caused to the complainant by reason of commission of such offence. Ltd. and another (supra) held that for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, fine can be imposed only in terms of the provisions of the said Act and when fine is not imposed, compensation can be directed to be paid for the loss or injury caused to the complainant by reason of commission of such offence. It was held that if under Section 357 (2) Cr.P.C. realization of fine is to be stayed automatically, there is no reason why the legislative intent cannot applied in relation to compensation directed to be paid under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. In the absence of any express provision, the question is to be considered having regard to the overall object of the statute. The position regarding stay of recovery of compensation was, therefore, considered in the context of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act' - for short). In such a case, the Court, it was held, must invoke doctrine of purposive construction and compensation awarded under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. may be recoverable as a fine under Section 421 read with Section 431 Cr.P.C. but it would not become automatically recoverable. The said provision should be subject to Section 357 (2) Cr.P.C. Thus Section 357 (2) Cr.P.C. would be attracted even when the applicant/accused had been directed to pay compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C. It would be for the Appellate Court to stay the direction for payment of compensation, which would necessarily mean that some conditions may be imposed therefor. A part of compensation may be directed to be deposited but the same must be a reasonable amount. 11. The said consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself held was in the context of Section 138 NI Act. Besides, it is for the appellate Court to consider the question regarding stay of payment of compensation to the 'victim'. 12. A Division Bench of this Court in criminal miscellaneous application i.e. CRM-62264-2011 in CRA-D-1077-DB-2011 in the matter of stay of recovery of fine passed the following order. "The provisions of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. and the decision of this Court in Jaspal Singh and another v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.99 DB of 2004 decided on 26.05.2004) have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, in support of the prayer for stay of realization of fine. "The provisions of Section 357(2) Cr.P.C. and the decision of this Court in Jaspal Singh and another v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.99 DB of 2004 decided on 26.05.2004) have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, in support of the prayer for stay of realization of fine. We do not consider the provisions of section 357(2) to be comprehensive and adequate to cover the proposition that until the appeal is decided no fine can be realized. The decision in Criminal Appeal No.99 DB of 2004 does not answer the question raised herein i.e. that the appellate Court has no option but to stay the realization of the fine during the pendency of the appeal. Having regard to the facts of the case i.e. the accused-appellant has been convicted for conscious possession of 44 Kgs of opium and the law as stated above we decline to stay the realization of fine which is to be paid by the accused-appellant forthwith in terms of the order of the learned trial Court." A perusal of the above shows that even recovery of fine is not to be stayed per se. 13. In the present case, the facts and circumstances are such that two sons of the complainant Phoolpati died in the incident that had occurred on 20.03.2011 and after trial, the applicants/appellants have been convicted and sentenced. 14. The legal heirs of the deceased are undoubtedly entitled to the compensation in a Civil Court. The compensation which is payable by the applicants/appellants partakes the character of a money decree, which is normally not to be stayed. Section 357 Cr.P.C. confers a duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question of compensation in every criminal case and in case compensation is not given reasons are to be recorded for the same as held by the Supreme Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 1036 and reiterated in Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, 2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) 747. In Manohar Singh's (supra) case it was held that the need to compensate victim of the crime can be taken to be an integral part of just sentencing. 15. The compensation that is payable is to be paid to the 'victim' of the crime. 16. In the circumstances, the payment of compensation of Rs. In Manohar Singh's (supra) case it was held that the need to compensate victim of the crime can be taken to be an integral part of just sentencing. 15. The compensation that is payable is to be paid to the 'victim' of the crime. 16. In the circumstances, the payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- by each of the applicants/appellants which is payable to the legal representatives of the two deceased is not liable to be stayed. 17. The criminal miscellaneous application is accordingly dismissed. However, in case the applicants/appellants deposit the amount that has been awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased Manji @ Bablu and Kala @ Kailash in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, the legal heirs shall be entitled to withdraw the same after furnishing necessary surety to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak, for restitution of the amount in case the appeal is allowed. In case the applicants/appellants do not deposit the amount of compensation, the same shall be recoverable in accordance with law.