JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The appellant/accused has filed this appeal against. the judgment of conviction for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 2. The appellant was tried for the following charge: “That you on 12.10.2006, at 8.00 a.m., in your house at Shivanapura Village, within the limits of Varthur police station, committed murder of your wife, Venkatalakshmamma. By intentionally causing her death by assaulting her with a chopper, suspecting her fidelity and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions” 3. The learned trial Judge, accepting the eye witness account given by the mother of deceased and other witnesses convicted accused for the afore stated offence. 4. We have heard Smt. Rajamani, learned Counsel appearing for accused and Sri N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned HCGP appearing for State. 5. In brief, the case of the prosecution, is as follows: The accused had married deceased Venkatalakshmarnrna about 4½ months prior to 12.10.2006. After marriage, deceased was living in the house of accused in Shivanapora village within the jurisdiction of Varthur police station. The accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife and she had illicit, intimacy with his cousin by name, Manjunath. On 11.10.2006, the accused had contacted the parents of deceased namely, P.W. 1, Chandramma and P.W. 7, Amarappa and informed them that his wife (deceased) had illicit intimacy with his cousin brother Manjunath and therefore, he has killed his cousin brother Manjunath and told them to come to village and take deceased from his house. On 11.10.2006. P.W. 1 came to the house of accused to take deceased from the house of accused. P.W. 2-Akkayamma (mother of accused) asked P.W. 1 to take her daughter on the following day morning, as it was 6.00 p.m., by then. P.W. 1 stayed in the house of accused. At the relevant time, the inmates of the house of accused were accused, deceased, mother of deceased, mother of accused and elder brother of accused. On the following day, at 7.00 a.m.. when deceased was getting ready to go to her parental house along with P.W. 1, accused entered the room in which deceased was arranging her clothes, bolted the door from inside and mercilessly assaulted deceased with a chopper and caused her death. The incident of assault was witnessed by P.Ws. 1 to 4. On the following day, at 7.00 a.m.. when deceased was getting ready to go to her parental house along with P.W. 1, accused entered the room in which deceased was arranging her clothes, bolted the door from inside and mercilessly assaulted deceased with a chopper and caused her death. The incident of assault was witnessed by P.Ws. 1 to 4. After causing the death of his wife, accused came out of the room with a chopper and threatened P.Ws. 1 and other witnesses and straightaway reached Varthur police station and confessed the crime. The Station House Officer sent a constable and confirmed the incident and thereafter registered a suo moto first information against, accused for the aforestated offence. The Investigating Officer seized the blood stained chopper and blood stained clothes of accused. The Investigating Officer on completion of the formalities of investigation submitted the charge-sheet against accused. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has relied on the following: (1) motive; (ii) eye witnesses account given by P.Ws. 1 to 3; (iii) evidence of P.W. 6 (Mohammed Rafi) the Police Inspector that accused surrendered before the jurisdictional police after commission of crime. Motive: 7. The homicidal death of deceased Venkatalakshmamma in a room in the house of accused at about 8.00 a.m. on 12.10.2006 has not been controverted by accused. 8. P.W. 9, Dr. S.R. Sharma, who conducted postmortem examination has deposed that deceased had suffered as many as 15 injuries on vital parts of the body and she died due to shock and hemorrhage. 9. P.W. 1, Chandramma, the mother of deceased has deposed: that the accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife. He was suspecting that his wife had illicit intimacy with his cousin brother by name Manjunath, Therefore, he had contacted the parents’ of deceased over phone and told them to come to take the deceased from his house. 10. P.W. 7, Amarappa father of deceased has deposed, that on the previous day of incident, accused had contacted him over phone and asked him to take deceased from his house as he had already killed her paramour Manjunath and he wanted to abscond. P.W. 7 sent his wife (P.W. 1) to the house of accused. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has proved the motive. 11. P.W. 7 sent his wife (P.W. 1) to the house of accused. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has proved the motive. 11. P.W. 1, the mother of deceased has given eye witnesses account of the incident P.W. 1 has deposed that on 11.10.2006, she had gone to the house of accused to take her daughter (deceased), As it was 6.00 p.m., the elder brother of accused asked P.W. 1 to take his daughter on the next day morning. Therefore, P.W. 1 stayed in the house of accused. On the following day, at about 7.00 a.m., when deceased was arranging her clothes to go with her mother, the accused entered the room and bolted the door from insider, within few minutes. P.W. 1 and other witnesses heard the cry raised by deceased, they peeped through the window and saw the accused assaulting deceased with a chopper. They Knocked the door but the accused did not open the door. The accused holding the chopper came out of the room and threatened P.W. 1 and others. Thereafter, the accused left the place with the chopper on a motor cycle. During cross examination of P.W. 1, an unsuccessful attempt was made to establish that accused was not in the house at the time of incident and he was in his garden land. 12. P.W. 2. Akkayamma, the mother of accused has deposed;- that on the previous clay of incident, P.W. 1 had come to her house to take her daughter (deceased) and as requested by them, P.W. 1 stayed in their house. On the following day, during morning, deceased was getting ready to go along with her mother. At, that time, accused returned from his garden land. P.W. 2 had not seen the accused entering room, however, she saw accused coining out of the room with a chopper. When P.W. 2 and other witnesses entered the room, they found Venkatalakshmamrna had died due to multiple Injuries. During cross examination by the learned Counsel for accused, P.W. 2 has denied the suggestion, that accused was in the garden land at the time of incident and after the Incident, they secured the accused from his garden land to his house. 13. P.W. 3, Balappa is the elder brother of deceased. During cross examination by the learned Counsel for accused, P.W. 2 has denied the suggestion, that accused was in the garden land at the time of incident and after the Incident, they secured the accused from his garden land to his house. 13. P.W. 3, Balappa is the elder brother of deceased. P.W. 3 has deposed: that P.W. 1 had come to their house to take her daughter (deceased), On the following day, deceased was getting ready to go along with her mother. After sometime, accused came out of the room holding a chopper. P.W. 3 and others entered the room and found the dead body of Venkatalakshmamma with multiple injuries. At the time of incident, apart from accused and deceased, none else was present, in the room. The accused holding a chopper left the place on his motor cycle. During cross examination by the learned Counsel for accused, P.W. 3 has denied the suggestion that at the time of incident, accused was in his garden land and after the incident, they secured the accused to the place of incident. 14. P.W. 4, Marappa has deposed that on 12.10.2008 at about 9.00 a.m., at Varthur Police Station, one person came on a motor cycle, he was holding a blood stained chopper and his clothes were blood stained. The Police Constable by name. Shivayya took him to the Sub Inspector of Police and enquired that person, who revealed that his name is Hanumantharaju of Shivanapura village. He told that he had suspected that his wife Venkatalakshmamma had illicit intimacy with his cousin brother, Manjunath and he had warned his wife but she continued her Illicit intimacy with said Manjunath. On 9.10.2008, deceased took Manjunath to his land and decapitated him and threw his head in the Pinakini river and on 12.10.2008 at 8.00 a.m., he assaulted his wife (deceased) in his room in the house and thereafter he surrendered before the police. 15. P.W. 5 Babu has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, he was declared as a hostile witness. 16. At the relevant time, P.W. 6-Mohammed Rafi was working as the Sub Inspector of Varthur Police Station. P.W. 6 has deposed on 12.10.2006 at about 9.30 a.m., when he was In the Station House, accused holding a blood stained chopper appeared before him and his clothes were blood stained and confessed on. 16. At the relevant time, P.W. 6-Mohammed Rafi was working as the Sub Inspector of Varthur Police Station. P.W. 6 has deposed on 12.10.2006 at about 9.30 a.m., when he was In the Station House, accused holding a blood stained chopper appeared before him and his clothes were blood stained and confessed on. the same day that at 9.00 a.m.. he had committed the murder of his wife in his house and accused also confessed the motive for the commission of murder. On the basis of the statement given, by accused, he registered suo moto first information in Crime No. 107/2006 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and submitted the first information report to the jurisdictional police. As the place of incident was within the jurisdiction of Sarjapura Police Station, he transferred the case to Sarjapura Police Station for further investigation. 17. P.W. 8, Muniraju has given evidence about the inquest held on the dead body of deceased in the house of accused. His evidence has not been controverted. 18. P.W. 18, Dr. Bhuvaneshwari has given evidence about the postmortem examination conducted by her. She has deposed that there were multiple cut injuries on the vital parts of the body including the skull. There was fracture of skull bone. She has opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhage. She has opined that injuries found on deceased could be caused with a chopper. 19. The evidence relating to the rest of Investigation is given by P.W. 13, the then Police Inspector of Thirumashettanahalli Circle. 20. On careful consideration of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, we find that accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife. Therefore, he had secured P.W. 1 to take his wife. P.W. 1 had come to the house of accused on the previous day. On the following day morning, when deceased was getting ready in her room to go with her mother, accused armed with a chopper entered the room, bolted the door from inside and repeatedly assaulted the deceased with a chopper and caused her death, The evidence of P.W. 1, mother of deceased finds substantial corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 2, mother of accused and P.W. 3, elder brother of accused. We have no reasons to suspect their evidence. We have no reasons to suspect their evidence. After the incident of assault, accused came out of the room holding a blood stained chopper and his clothes were blood stained. Thereafter, he proceeded to Varthur Police Station and confessed the crime. In the police station, the blood stained chopper and blood stained clothes were seized. 21. The contents of FSL report marked as Exs.P.32 and 33 would reveal that the clothes of accused were stained with blood. Therefore, we hold that, the prosecution has proved that accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife. On 12.10.2008 at 8.00 a.m., in a room of his house In Shivanuru village within the jurisdiction of Varthur Police Station, the accused with the intention and knowledge of causing death of his wife, assaulted his wife with a chopper and caused her death and thereby committed an offence under Section 302 IPC. 22. The learned Counsel for accused would submit that the first information (confessional statement) given by accused should not have been used against him. Though the confessional statement of accused cannot be used against him, the Court can consider the conduct of accused to verify the credibility of evidence adduced by the prosecution. We have relied on the eye-witness account and other circumstances, including the conduct of accused. Therefore, we cannot accept the submission of learned Counsel for accused. 23. On reconsideration of the matter, we hold that the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.