JUDGMENT : BILAL NAZKI, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Public Prosecutor. 2. This is an appeal against the sentence and conviction passed against the sole accused in S.C. No. 451 of 1999 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Adilabad. 3. The case of the Prosecution was that the accused under the belief that his accounts were not being settled by the deceased, after the accused had been dismissed from service by the railways, and, therefore, he committed the murder of the deceased on 22-05-1999 at about 09-00 a.m. near the C & W Workshop of the railways at Bellampalli. 4. On the basis of these allegations, charge sheet was filed. The Court framed the charges and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents. 7 objects were also exhibited. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 6. Many witnesses were projected as eyewitnesses by the prosecution and some of them supported the prosecution case in full, some of them partly and some of them turned completely hostile. P.W. 1 stated that he knew both accused and deceased. The accused was a gangman and the deceased was a clerk under the railways at Bellampalli. Accused had been dismissed from service. About four years prior to the occurrence, on 22-05-1999 at about 09.00 a.m. the witness was on duty near C & W shed at Bellampalli. Accused and the deceased came to work place and they got engaged in a quarrel. After they reached near a Kanuga tree where the witness was working, the accused asked the deceased as to why he had not settled his account in the department consequent to his dismissal. The deceased told the accused that he was not concerned with the accounts branch, but the accused was not convinced with the reply. He picked up a knife from his bag and stabbed the deceased on left side of the neck of the deceased. Mallesh P.W. 10 caught hold of the accused. The accused got rid of him and fled away with the knife. 7. Three more persons viz., Rajalingam, Narsing Rao and Tirupal Naik also witnessed the incident. They shifted the injured to the railway hospital. Mallesh P.W. 10 caught hold of the accused. The accused got rid of him and fled away with the knife. 7. Three more persons viz., Rajalingam, Narsing Rao and Tirupal Naik also witnessed the incident. They shifted the injured to the railway hospital. From there he was shifted to area hospital where the deceased died. This witness gave Ex. P-1 to Police Station, Bellampalli II-Town. Police examined him and other witnesses were also examined. Police also got recorded the statement of this witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In cross-examination, no questions were put for the accused, which could in any way throw any doubt on the accused, which could in any way throw any doubt on the occurrence. Questions were put as to how many hospitals were there in Bellampalli. Questions were also put with regard to the elections of certain societies in which the witness stated that accused was influential with the employees of railways department. It was denied whether the deceased was planning to contest in the elections. Therefore, the testimony of P.W. 1 was not at all shaken. Then there is P.W. 2 She is the wife of the deceased, who stated that a day prior to the occurrence the accused came to her house and asked her husband to settle his accounts and also threatened him with death in case the accounts were not settled. But the deceased had told the accused that he had nothing to do with the branch concerning the accounts. She was informed by some railway employees that the accused had stabbed her husband. She went to the hospital. By the time she reached the hospital, the deceased died. Police examined her. There were questions put to this witness in cross-examination. P.W. 3 is another witness who was present at the time of the occurrence. He also stated that there was some altercation between accused and the deceased over payment of dues of the accused. The accused also told the deceased that he was responsible for his suspension. The accused then picked up a knife from his bag and chased the deceased around the tree. The accused stabbed the deceased with a knife under his cheek. The knife was M.O. 1. The deceased sustained bleeding injury. The accused also told the deceased that he was responsible for his suspension. The accused then picked up a knife from his bag and chased the deceased around the tree. The accused stabbed the deceased with a knife under his cheek. The knife was M.O. 1. The deceased sustained bleeding injury. This testimony corroborates the testimony of P.W. 1 and surprisingly almost no questions were put to this witness in the cross-examination, except that certain suggestions were given to him that he was making a false statement. P.W. 4 turned hostile but even then he stated at about 9.00 a.m., in the morning the accused and the deceased came to the place of occurrence and they exchanged abuses. Later on, his co-workers informed him that the accused had stabbed the deceased, He did not see the actual stabbing. At least, he admitted that he had seen both of them together at the place of occurrance. P.W. 5 also turned hostile. P.W. 6 turned hostile, but admitted that accused and the deceased were together at 09-00 a.m., at the place of occurrence. P.W. 7 is the medical officer at Singareni Area Hospital. Bellampalli. He stated that deceased was brought to him with injuries when he was on duty. He gave him treatment and title later the deceased died in the hospital. P.W. 8 was the medical superintendent in Railway Hospital, Bellampalli. On 22-05-1999 when he was on duty in the hospital, deceased was brought to the hospital with stab injuries. He also gave him first aid and advised that the deceased be taken to Area Hospital, Bellampalli. P.W. 9 is the witness to the inquest. P.W. 10 also turned hostile. But the also admitted that at the place of occurrence at the relevant time accused and deceased were together. They were talking to each other. P.W. 11 is the witness before whom the accused made disclosure, which led to the production of M.O. 1 knife. According to him, the police seized the same under Ex. P-9. This witness was also put to no cross-examination. P.W. 12 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem and recorded that there was a sharp edged stab injury over the left side of the neck immediately below the mandible measuring about 2? × ½? deep into the trachea. According to him, the police seized the same under Ex. P-9. This witness was also put to no cross-examination. P.W. 12 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem and recorded that there was a sharp edged stab injury over the left side of the neck immediately below the mandible measuring about 2? × ½? deep into the trachea. On exploration of the above injury, he found that the track of the wound had passed underneath the hyoid bone into the trachea. According to him, the said injury would have been caused by a sharp weapon like M.O. 1 knife and the said injury was ante-mortem in nature. The deceased could have died 3 to 5 hours prior to post-mortem. The death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock due to stab injury to the neck. P.W. 13 was also a witness to the disclosure with regard to M.O-1 P.W. 14 was the Sub-Inspector of Police and P.W. 15 was the Investigating Officer. 8. In the light of the eyewitness account of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. which is unimpeachable, we do not think that there is any ground for us to disbelieve these witnesses. There was some misunderstanding between the accused and the deceased and the accused believed that he had been dismissed and his accounts were not settled because of the deceased and for this deceased was responsible. Therefore, there was motive for him to commit the murder of the deceased. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that there was only one single blow given by the accused to the deceased which resulted in his death and he had no intention to cause the death of the deceased. It was only at the spur of moment as there was fight between the two and as the accused believed that the deceased was responsible for his agony; that he lost his control and gave a blow to the deceased. In this connection, he relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Bhera v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 SCC (Cri) 1230. to suggest that even if there is an offence, it is an offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC. We are not impressed by the argument simply on the ground that it was not the first time that the accused and the deceased had quarrel over settling of some accounts. to suggest that even if there is an offence, it is an offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC. We are not impressed by the argument simply on the ground that it was not the first time that the accused and the deceased had quarrel over settling of some accounts. According to P.W. 2, one day prior to the occurrence, the accused had come to their house and had threatened the deceased that he would kill him if the accounts were not settled. Although he had been told on a day prior to the occurrence and on the date of occurrence also that the deceased was not concerned with accounts Section and he could not settle his dues, still the accused attacked the deceased which resulted in his death. He had gone to the office where he knew that the deceased would also be present and he had gone to the place with a knife in his bag, which clearly establishes that the accused had the intention of causing an injury, which would result in death of the deceased. 10. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.