JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Satya Narayan, Birdhi Lal and Kanhaiya Lal were three brothers. Birdhi Lal had two sons, namely Ram Prasad and Raju Lal. Kanhaiya Lal was married with Shanti Bai (P.W. 14). They were blessed with two children, namely Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) and Seema (P.W. 8). Chandra Kala (P.W. 12) is wife of Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3). Satya Narayan and Birdhi Lal, two brothers, and Ram Prasad and Raju Lal, two sons of Birdhi Lal, were sent for trial for causing murder of Kanhaiya Lal and injuries to Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3), Seema (P.W. 8), Chandra Kala (P.W. 12) and Shanti Bai (P.W. 14). 2. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bundi vide impugned judgment dated 18.1.2014 held Satya Narayan substantively guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial court came to the conclusion that qua offence of murder, Section 34 is not attracted. Hence, Birdhi Lal, his two sons Ram Prasad and Raju Lal were acquitted of offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The trial court held that due to solitary blow caused by Satya Narayan, his brother Kanhaiya Lal had died and thus, Satya Narayan is individually liable for murder. However, the trial court held that Satya Narayan, his brother Birdhi Lal and Ram Prasad and Raju Lal, two sons of Birdhi Lal, responsible for causing simple injuries to four injured eye-witnesses namely Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3), Seema (P.W. 8), Chandra Kala (P.W. 12) and Shanti Bai (P.W. 14). Having convicted the accused Satya Narayan for offence under Section 302 IPC and all the four accused for offences under Sections 341/34 and 323/34 IPC, the trial court vide a separate order of even date, sentenced the appellants as under:- "Accused, Satya Narayan "U/s. 302 IPC: Life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo six months additional imprisonment. U/s. 323/34 IPC: Four months simple imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo fifteen days additional simple imprisonment. U/s. 341/34 IPC: Fifteen days simple imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default thereof to further undergo three days additional simple imprisonment." Accused, Birdhi Lal, Raju Lal and Ram Prasad "U/s. 323/34 IPC: Four months simple imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo fifteen days additional simple imprisonment. U/s. 341/34 IPC: Fifteen days simple imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default thereof to further undergo three days additional simple imprisonment." Accused, Birdhi Lal, Raju Lal and Ram Prasad "U/s. 323/34 IPC: Four months simple imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo fifteen days additional simple imprisonment. U/s. 341/34 IPC: Fifteen days simple imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default thereof to further undergo three days additional simple imprisonment." 3. Birdhi Lal and his two sons, namely Ram Prasad and Raju Lal, accepted the verdict given by the trial court and have not preferred any appeal. 4. Satya Narayan aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, has filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 287/2014. Complainant Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) has challenged the impugned judgment so far acquittal of Birdhi Lal, his two sons Ram Prasad and Raju Lal, for offence under Section 302/34 IPC is concerned. The said appeal has been assigned docket number, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 397/2014. State of Rajasthan has also filed an application seeking leave to appeal to assail the acquittal of above said three persons. The application for grant of leave to appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan bear D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 127/2014. 5. Since in both the appeals and application filed for grant of leave to appeal same impugned judgment has been assailed, we shall decide all the three matters together. 6. Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) on 8.8.2009 at 12.20 PM got recorded his statement (Ex. P.4) before ASI Govind Singh (P.W. 20). On the basis of statement (Parcha Bayan) (Ex. P.4), formal FIR (Ex. P.23) bearing FIR No. 198/09 was registered at Police Station Dablana, District Bundi for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 321, 307, 302/34 IPC. 7. In his statement (Ex. P.4) leading to registration of FIR (Ex. P.23) Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) stated that he is resident of Village Sarsod. On 8.8.2009 at about 8.30 AM his father Kanhaiya Lal in order to resolve the dispute of boundary of the field alongwith villagers Prabhu Singh, Bhawani singh Ramlal Gurjar, Laxman Singh, Hanuman Singh, Sheoji Bairwa had gone to the field. P.23) Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) stated that he is resident of Village Sarsod. On 8.8.2009 at about 8.30 AM his father Kanhaiya Lal in order to resolve the dispute of boundary of the field alongwith villagers Prabhu Singh, Bhawani singh Ramlal Gurjar, Laxman Singh, Hanuman Singh, Sheoji Bairwa had gone to the field. They are having continuous dispute with uncles Satya Narayan S/o. Pannalal Khati and Birdhi Lal S/o. Pannalal Khati. After intervention of the residents of the village they had returned from their field. His father Kanhaiya Lal on return sat on the platform (Chabutara) made in front of his house. Meanwhile, Satya Narayan and Birdhi Lal armed with a Kulhadi, Ram Prasad and Raju armed with lathies arrived there. All the four came with a common intention while giving abuses. Immediately on arrival Satya Narayan caused a Kulhadi blow on the head of his father Kanhaiya Lal. Upon causing of Kulhadi blow his father Kanhaiya Lal fell on the ground. Meanwhile, mother Shanti Bai, his wife Chandra Kala came forward to intervene. They were also given beating. Nand Ram @ Nandlal (P.W. 3) also came forward to separate the accused. Then Birdhi Lal caused him a Kulhadi blow in the head. Ram Prasad gave a lathi blow on his neck. Raju caused a lathi blow on the back and wrist of his right hand. Hanuman Singh and Gopal Bareth arrived at the spot. They saw the occurrence. They lifted the injured and took them inside their house. From the spot Nand Ram @ Nandlal (P.W. 3), his father Kanhaiya Lal, mother Shanti Bai (P.W. 14) in a van were brought to the Hospital, Bundi. They were got admitted there. At the hospital his father Kanhaiya Lal died. 8. In the statement (Ex. P.4) Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) specifically stated that both the parties were having dispute over the boundary of the field and in the day villagers had intervened to resolve the dispute. A grievance was made that due to dispute over common boundary of the field, accused have caused injuries. 9. Dr. Gopal Meena (P.W. 13) on 8.8.2009 while posted at Government Hospital, Bundi, examined Kanhaiya Lal on 8.8.2009 at 11.00 AM. In the injury report (Ex. P.17), he noted following injuries on the person of Kanhaiya Lal:- "1. A grievance was made that due to dispute over common boundary of the field, accused have caused injuries. 9. Dr. Gopal Meena (P.W. 13) on 8.8.2009 while posted at Government Hospital, Bundi, examined Kanhaiya Lal on 8.8.2009 at 11.00 AM. In the injury report (Ex. P.17), he noted following injuries on the person of Kanhaiya Lal:- "1. Lacerated wound 3.0 cm x 1.5 cm x deep bone with red clotted blood on vertex, blunt. 2. Lacerated wound 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm x deep bone on Rt parietal bone near vertex, blunt." 10. Kanhaiya Lal while admitted in hospital expired and his autopsy was conducted by Dr. Gopal Meena (P.W. 13). In the postmortem report (Ex. P.21), the doctor had noted the same injuries which were noted in the injury report (Ex. P.17). On opening of skull, Doctor found fracture of right and left parietal bone of vertex. Membrane of the brain was ruptured. Brain was compressed. As per opinion of the Doctor, cause of death was coma due to head injury. 11. Dr. Gopal Meena (P.W. 13) also medico-legally examined Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) on 8.8.2009 at 11.15 AM and in the injury report (Ex. P.14) he noted following five injuries on the person of Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3):- "1. Lacerated wound 5.5 cm x 1.0 cm x deep bone on vertex with red clotted blood, blunt. 2. Bruise (reddish) 6.0 cm x 2.0 cm on Lt scapulla (Horizontal), blunt. 3. Bruise (reddish) 7.0 cm x 2.0 cm on posterior aspect of chest Lt side (oblique), blunt. 4. Bruise (reddish) 6.0 cm x 2.0 cm on RT scapulla (Horizontal), blunt. 5. Bruise (reddish) 7.0 cm x 2.0 cm on posterior aspect Rt shoulder region, blunt." 12. As per opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by blunt weapon. 13. Dr. Gopal Meena (P.W. 13) had also examined Shanti Bai (P.W. 14) wife of the deceased Kanhaiya Lal, on 8.8.209 at 11.25 AM and in the injury report (Ex. P.16) he noted following three injuries on her person:- "1. Painful swelling 6.0 cm x 3.0 cm on lateral aspect of LT thigh (upper 1/2), simple blunt. 2. Painful swelling 3.0 cm x 3.0 cm on Posterior aspect of chest Rt, simple blunt. 3. c/o pain on Lt knee joint and Lt leg. " 14. P.16) he noted following three injuries on her person:- "1. Painful swelling 6.0 cm x 3.0 cm on lateral aspect of LT thigh (upper 1/2), simple blunt. 2. Painful swelling 3.0 cm x 3.0 cm on Posterior aspect of chest Rt, simple blunt. 3. c/o pain on Lt knee joint and Lt leg. " 14. As per opinion of the Doctor, all the three injuries were caused by blunt weapon and were simple in nature. 15. Dr. Ashish Agrawal (P.W. 23) on 10.8.2009 at 12.20 PM medico-legally examined Chandra Kala (P.W. 12) wife of Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3). In the injury report (Ex. P.32), he noted one injury, 2 x 1 cm swelling on left elbow. The said injury was caused by blunt weapon and was simple in nature. 16. Dr. Ashish Agrawal (P.W. 23) on 10.8.2009 at 1.10 PM also examined Seema (P.W. 8) and in the injury report (Ex. P.33), he noted one injury bearing swelling 1 x 1 cm on thumb of left foot with minimal bleeding scab. As per Doctor, the said injury was also simple in nature. 17. Prosecution to secure conviction of the accused, has primarily relied upon the testimony of four eye-witnesses, namely Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) son of the deceased, Seema (P.W. 8) daughter of the deceased, Chandra Kala (P.W. 12) wife of Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) and daughter-in-law of the deceased and Shanti Bai (P.W. 14) mother of Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) and wife of the deceased. 18. Testimony of all the eye-witnesses in sum and substance remain the same. However, we will give gist of the prosecution case as it has emerged in the testimony of Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3). 19. In his deposition before the court Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) has stated that on 8.8.2009 in the morning at 8.30 AM he alongwith his father Kanhaiya Lal, mother Shanti Bai, co-villagers Bhawani Singh, Laxman Singh, Prabhu Singh, Hanuman Singh, Ramlal Gurjar and Sheoji Bairwa had gone to the well in their fields. There his uncles Satya Narayan, Birdhi Lal were also present. They intended to dig the boundary wall ^^esjk dkdk lR;ukjk;.k] fcj/khyky gekjh [ksr dh esM dks [kksnuk pkgrs FksA** Villagers made an attempt to resolve the dispute. There his uncles Satya Narayan, Birdhi Lal were also present. They intended to dig the boundary wall ^^esjk dkdk lR;ukjk;.k] fcj/khyky gekjh [ksr dh esM dks [kksnuk pkgrs FksA** Villagers made an attempt to resolve the dispute. Satya Narayan accepted whatever was stated by the villagers and on persuasion, they retired to their house. His father sat on the platform (Chabutara) in front of their house. Then Satya Narayan, Birdhi Lal, Ram Prasad and Raju came out of their house. Satya Narayan and Birdhi Lal were armed with Kulhadi. Ram Prasad and Raju were armed with lathies. All the four came with a common intention. Immediately on arrival, Satya Narayan gave a Kulhadi blow on it sharp side on the head of his father. Head of his father started bleeding. His father fell on the ground. We reproduce the exact words stated by the witness as under:- ^^esjs firk ds lR;ukjk;.k us dqYgkM+h dh flj ij ekjh tks /kkj dh rjQ ls ekjhA ftlls esjs firk ds flj ls [kwu fudyus yxk vkSj esjs firk da/ks ds cy tehu ij fxj x,A** 20. It is stated, thereafter when Chandra Kala (P.W. 12) wife of witness Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3), his mother Shanti Bai (P.W. 14) and sister Seema (P.W. 8) came forward to intervene, they were also caused injuries by the accused. 21. What is stated by Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) has been reiterated by his wife Chandra Kala (P.W. 12), his sister Seema (P.W. 8) and his mother Shanti Bai (P.W. 14). D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 397/2014 D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 127/2014 22. Shri Atul Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the complainant Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) and Shri Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Rajasthan, have vehemently urged that the Court below has gravely erred in acquitting Birdhi Lal and his sons Ram Prasad and Raju Lal. They have contended that since all the accused armed with weapons came out of their house and arrived in front of house of deceased Kanhaiya Lal, they shared common intention and thus, the trial court has gravely erred in not to apply Section 34 IPC with substantive offence under Section 302 IPC. 23. They have contended that since all the accused armed with weapons came out of their house and arrived in front of house of deceased Kanhaiya Lal, they shared common intention and thus, the trial court has gravely erred in not to apply Section 34 IPC with substantive offence under Section 302 IPC. 23. We have given our due consideration to the arguments advanced by Shri Atul Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the complainant, and Shri Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 24. Admittedly, all the witnesses in court have stated that Satya Narayan immediately on arrival, had caused a solitary injury with Kuladhi on the head of Kanhaiya Lal deceased. Thus, all the three accused, Birdhi Lal and his two sons Ram Prasad and Raju Lal have not caused any injury to deceased Kanhaiya Lal. Furthermore, as per prosecution case when the prosecution witnesses came forward to rescue the deceased, injuries were caused to them. All the injuries on the persons of Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3), Seema (P.W. 8), Chandra Kala (P.W. 12) and Smt. Shanti Bai (P.W. 14) are simple in nature. The injuries, to some extent, are superficial. Had Birdhi Lal and his two sons Ram Prasad and Raju Lal shared common intention with Satya Narayan accused, they would have caused much harm to the witnesses. The nature and number of injuries caused by three accused namely Birdhi lal and his two sons Ram Prasad and Raju Lal, make it apparent that they were not sharing common intention with Satya Narayan to cause murder. At the most, aggrieved against the dispute over a Boundary, they intended to give a beating to the family of Kanhaiya Lal deceased. We also cannot ignore that none of the three acquitted accused on arrival caused any injury to Kanhaiya Lal. They have not opened the attack. It is Satya Narayan who had caused solitary injury on the head of Kanhaiya Lal. Thus, it is rightly held by the court below that it is a case of individual liability. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to infer that the acquitted accused had shared common intention with their co-accused Satya Narayan. It is admitted case of the prosecution that after the fatal blow was caused, the acquitted accused have caused simple injuries to the witnesses. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is difficult to infer that the acquitted accused had shared common intention with their co-accused Satya Narayan. It is admitted case of the prosecution that after the fatal blow was caused, the acquitted accused have caused simple injuries to the witnesses. Therefore, the view formulated by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse. We cannot disturb the view formulated by the trial court in an appeal against acquittal, if the one view is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 25. Consequently we find no merit in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 397/2014 preferred by complainant Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) against acquittal of Birdhi Lal and his two sons Ram Prasad and Raju Lal. Hence, the same is dismissed. 26. For the above reasons stated by us, there is also no merit in the application filed by the State of Rajasthan for grant of Leave to Appeal, bearing D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 127/2014. Therefore, D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 127/2014 is also dismissed. D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 287/2014 27. In the context of the facts enumerated by us above, Shri A.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Ms. Shakshi Swami, has contended that all the witnesses have specifically stated that Satya Narayan caused injury from sharp side of Kuladhi to deceased Kanhaiya Lal. Shri A.K. Gupta has drawn our attention to the testimony of Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3). The said portion we have already reproduced above wherein Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) stated that upon arrival, Satya Narayan caused a Kuladhi blow from its sharp side on the head of his father Kanhaiya Lal. 28. Seema (P.W. 8) in cross-examination stated as under:- ^^lR;ukjk;.k us esjs firk ds flj ij dqYgkMh dh /kkj dh rjQ ls ekjk FkkA dqYgkMh flj esa fdruh vanj ?kql xbZ Fkh bldk eq>s /;ku ugha gSA ;s lgh gS fd flj esa yxus ls esjs firk ds [kwu fudyk o esjs firk pDdj [kkdj uhps fxj x, fQj esjh eka esjs firk ds Åij iM+ xbZ o fpYykbZ fd esjs ifr dks er ekjksA** 29. Shri A.K. Gupta, has contended that not only Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) son of the deceased, Seema (P.W. 8) daughter of the deceased, but Chandra Kala (P.W. 12) wife of Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) and Smt. Shanti Bai (P.W. 14) wife of the deceased have also stated that accused Satya Narayan has caused a Kuladhi blow from the sharp side on the head of deceased Kanhaiya Lal. Shanti Bai (P.W. 14) wife of the deceased in court stated that the accused while giving abuses came and Satya Narayan accused caused an injury from sharp side of Kuladhi on the head of her husband Kanhaiya Lal who was sitting on Chabutara (Platform) ^^;s yksx xkyhxyksp djrs gq, vk, vkSj esjk ifr tks pcwrjs ij cSBk gqvk Fkk mlds lR;ukjk;.k us /kkj dh rjQ ls flj ij dqYgkM+h dh ekjhA** 30. Shri A.K. Gupta has forcibly contended that the medical evidence contradicts the ocular version. Referring to injury report (Ex. P17) of deceased and postmortem report (Ex. P21), it is contended that both the injuries on the head of deceased as per opinion of the doctor were caused by a blunt weapon. It is stated that in the injury report (Ex. P17) and in the postmortem report (Ex. P21), the doctor has noted that injury on vertex and injury on parietal region were lacerated wounds. 31. We have given our due consideration to the arguments advanced by Shri A.K. Gupta. Kuladhi is a heavy weapon. It can be used both from sharp as well as blunt side. In the present case, the doctor examining Kanhaiya Lal deceased, in the injury report (Ex. P17) and in the postmortem report (Ex. P21) has not noted the margins of the injuries. Therefore, this court has no medical evidence available to infer whether the margins were clean, regular or irregular. Furthermore, doctor has given no description regarding the hair bulbs whether the same were clean cut or crushed. 32. Be that as it may, in the occurrence four persons namely Nand Ram @ Nand Lal (P.W. 3) son of the deceased, Seema (P.W. 8) daughter of the deceased, Chandra Kala (P.W. 12) daughter-in-law of the deceased and Smt. Shanti Bai (P.W. 14) wife of the deceased were injured. Their presence cannot be doubted. These, witnesses have specifically stated that Satya Narayan caused an injury with a Kuladhi. Their presence cannot be doubted. These, witnesses have specifically stated that Satya Narayan caused an injury with a Kuladhi. Four injured relations will be last person to absolve the real assailant. They will not venture to substitute the person who, in fact, had caused the injury. While giving the blow from sharp side of Kuladhi, due to intervention or change of posture by recipient, kuladhi can land on the recipient of injury from blunt side too. Furthermore, no effort has been made to rule out whether the blade of the kuladhi was blunt or not? We tend to believe the injured witnesses and shall lend more credence to the ocular version as medical evidence has not been explored to the extent that it can be accepted as a clincher. 33. Unable to persuade us to disbelieve the evidence, Shri A.K. Gupta has canvassed that as per the witnesses Satya Narayan has caused a single injury on the head of the deceased. Learned counsel has stated that all the witnesses have not stated that after causing a blow with Kuladhi, appellant Satya Narayan had caused another injury or given a second blow. 34. It is true that all the witnesses have stated that the accused Satya Narayan caused only one injury with kuladhi on the head of the deceased. Injury on vertex of skull is the injury which has been attributed by the witnesses to Satya Narayan. So far injury No. 2 on parietal region is concerned, all the witnesses have stated that after the accused had caused a solitary blow on the head of the deceased, he fell on the ground towards shoulder side. Therefore, we can reasonably infer that when after causing first injury deceased fell on the side of shoulder, he suffered injury on parietal region. 35. Shri A.K. Gupta having canvassed before us that since Satya Narayan has caused only one injury, and the appellant has not repeated the blow, we should convert the offence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. Shri A.K. Gupta has vehemently contended that the occurrence had happened in a quick succession. Therefore, we should take the entire incident as one transaction which started in the fields over the boundary of the field and culminated at the Chabutara (Platform) in front of house of the deceased. 36. The argument at the first instance look attractive. Shri A.K. Gupta has vehemently contended that the occurrence had happened in a quick succession. Therefore, we should take the entire incident as one transaction which started in the fields over the boundary of the field and culminated at the Chabutara (Platform) in front of house of the deceased. 36. The argument at the first instance look attractive. It has come in evidence that when witnesses persuaded Satya Narayan, he left the field and had not persisted with the alteration of the boundary of the field. It is not the case of the prosecution or the defence that in the field itself accused had caused injury. It is the case of the prosecution that after the arguments in the fields concluded, Kanhaiya Lal came and sat on the Platform (Chabutara) in front of the house. It has also come in evidence that thereafter accused Satya Narayan went to his house and armed with weapon came out of the house and reached at the house of deceased and with Kuladhi, Satya Narayan caused one injury to the deceased. Therefore, there was cooling time available to Satya Narayan. Tempers which ran high in the field by the time Satya Narayan came to his house ought to have cooled down. Therefore, Satya Narayan armed with a lethal weapon came at the Chabutara (platform) in front of house of the deceased. He, at once, gave an injury on vital portion of Kanhaiya Lal deceased. At the time when accused came armed with a weapon, purportedly to give beating, Kanhaiya Lal deceased had not said anything. Therefore, there is nothing on record that due to exchange of words an altercation had ensued or something happened at the spot on the spur of moment therefore Satya Narayan had caused injury. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument raised by Shri A.K. Gupta qua modification of offence. 37. Consequently, we reject the argument so far conversion of offence is concerned. No other argument has been raised before us. 38. Taking broad picture which has emerged from the testimony of eye-witnesses, we find no merit in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 287/2014 preferred by Satya Narayan and consequently, the same is also dismissed. 39. 37. Consequently, we reject the argument so far conversion of offence is concerned. No other argument has been raised before us. 38. Taking broad picture which has emerged from the testimony of eye-witnesses, we find no merit in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 287/2014 preferred by Satya Narayan and consequently, the same is also dismissed. 39. As a result of above discussion, all the three D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 287/2014 filed by Satya Narayan accused, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 397/2014 preferred by Nand Ram @ Nand Lal complainant and D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 127/2014 instituted by the State of Rajasthan, are dismissed.