JUDGMENT : B.P Jha & Shri R. L. Das, JJ. This appeal arises out of the JUDGMENT : dated 14th August, 1969, passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1967. 2. There were 13 accused persons before the trial court. Out of them, six were acquitted and seven were convicted. The Trial Court convicted Bhagwat Gorhi (appellant no. 1), Sheanath Pandey (appellant no. 4), Chinta Sao (appellant no. 6) and Rajak Mian (appellant no. 7) in respect of the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Appellant no.1 Bhagwat Gorhi was also held guilty in respect of the offence under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence was passed against him. Appellant no. 2, Sheonarayan Chaudhry, appellant no. 3, Brahmanand Paswan and appellant no. 5 Laddoo Chaudhary were found guilty in respect of the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3. The case of the prosecution, in short, as disclosed by P. W. 13 Renupada Saha is as follows :- The occurrence took place on 14th September, 1966 at about 6.30 P. M. in the shop and at the house of P. W. 13. Birendra Kumar Das (P. W. 14), Manohar Bhagat (P. W. 17) and Jatal Kumar Das (P. W. 19) are witnesses of the occurrence. P. W. 17 Manohar Bhagat had been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 19 Jatal Kumar Das did not identify anyone. P. W. 14 Birendra Kumar Das had identified appellant no. 4 Sheonath Pandey. 4. Seven dacoits armed with deadly weapons came at the shop of P. W. 13 Renupada Saha and after tying his hands they snatched one Omega watch from his wrist. They also assaulted P.W. 13 with lathi and took him to his house. He was taken to a room where they demanded key from him. P. W. 13 told that this was the house of his mother. Thereafter, they took him to his house and asked him to hand over his gun. Some of the dacoits went to his wife and demanded ornaments. P. W. 13 handed over his gun bearing no. 50809 Geko Germany and 15 cartridges to the dacoits out of fear. P. W. 13 told that this was the house of his mother. Thereafter, they took him to his house and asked him to hand over his gun. Some of the dacoits went to his wife and demanded ornaments. P. W. 13 handed over his gun bearing no. 50809 Geko Germany and 15 cartridges to the dacoits out of fear. He also gave the key of the Almirah to the dacoits. The dacoits took away money from the Almirah. who dacoits also opened the Iron Safe and took away money from it. Thereafter, they took P. W. 13 to the house of his father. They demanded key from him. P. W. 13 told that his mother was at Patna. They broke the doors. Again they demanded the key of the Iron Safe. He replied that the key was not with him. Then they took the key of the Iron Safe from the Almirah and opened the Iron Safe from the key. They took away money and ornaments from the Iron Safe. In short and substance, they took away money, ornaments and gun from his house. 5. The case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the first informant Anil Kant Gangopadhya (P. S. 1). The fardbeyan was recorded on 15.9.1966 at 2 A. M. at Barharwa Hospital. The officer-in-charge of Rajmahal Police Station (P. W. 22A) reached the place of occurrence on the next day that is, on 15.9.1966. He took the statement of the P. Ws. and prepared a sketch map of the place of occurrence. He arranged T.I. parade. After completing investigation, he submitted charge sheet. 6. I take up the case of each appellant separately. The allegation against appellant no. 1 Bhagwat Gorhi is that he was in possession of gun and he participated in the occurrence. None of the P. Ws. had identified Bhagwat Gorhi as one of the participants in the dacoity either in the T. I. parade or before the court. I, therefore, hold that his conviction in respect of the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal. So far as his conviction under Section 412 is concerned, it cannot be maintained in view of the previous JUDGMENT : dated 30.6.69 passed in Sessions Case no. 35 of 1967. I, therefore, hold that his conviction in respect of the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code is illegal. So far as his conviction under Section 412 is concerned, it cannot be maintained in view of the previous JUDGMENT : dated 30.6.69 passed in Sessions Case no. 35 of 1967. In that JUDGMENT :, it was held that Bhagwat Gorhi was not guilty in respect of the offence under Section 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 (Act 54 of 1959). Section 25(1) of the Arms Act provides that whoever acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearm or ammunition in contravention of Section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 3 of the Arms Act provides that no person shall acquire, have in his possession, or carry any firearm or ammunition unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. The main allegation against Bhagwat Gorhi is that he was in possession of the gun belonging to P.W. 13 Renupada Saha. In face of the acquittal ORDER :passed by the Sessions Judge on 30th June, 1969, in respect of the offence under Section 25 (1)(a) of the Arms Act, it cannot be held that appellant no.1 Bhagwat Gorhi was in possession of the gun belonging to P. W. 13. It is a settled law that a previous verdict in a previous trial is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. It relevant at this stage to cite the decision of the Privy Council in (1) Sambasivan Vs. Public Prosecutor reported in 1950 Appeal Cases, 458. The relevant portion is at page 479 which runs as follows : "The effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not completely stated by saying that the person acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. The maxim "Res judicata pro veriate accipitur" is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings. " In the present case, appellant no. To that it must be added that the verdict is binding and conclusive in all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. The maxim "Res judicata pro veriate accipitur" is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings. " In the present case, appellant no. 1, Bhagwat Gorhi having been acquitted at the first trial on the charge of having gun in his possession, the prosecution was bound to accept the correctness of the verdict and was precluded from challenging it in the subsequent trial. This decision has been approved by the Supreme Court in (2) Pritam Singh V. The State of Punjab (A. I. R. 1956 Supreme Court, 415). 7. Who principle laid down in the above mentioned cases will also equally apply to the case of appellant no. 2 Sheonarayan Chaudhary and appellant no. 3, Brahmanand Paswan, because they were also tried by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case no. 35 of 1967. In the present case the trial Court framed a charge against these appellants in respect of the offence under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court did not convict these appellants, that is, Bhagwat Gorhi (appellant no. 1), Sheonarayan Chaudhary (appellant no. 2) and Brahmanand Pas wan (appellant no. 3) in respect of the offence under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, but the trial court convicted these appellants in respect of the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against these three appellants are that they assisted in concealing the gun. The verdict in the previous Sessions Case no. 35 of 1967 is binding to all subsequent proceedings between the parties to the adjudication. It has been held by the previous JUDGMENT : in Sessions Case no. 35 of 1967 that appellant nos. 1 to 3 did not acquire possession of the gun in question and, therefore there cannot arise any question of concealment. These three appellants cannot be held to be guilty in respect of the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code in view of the previous JUDGMENT : of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case no. 35 of 1967. The convictions and sentences as passed against appellant no.1 Bhagwat Gorhi, appellant no. 2 Sheonarayan Chaudhary and appellant no. 3 Brahamanand Paswan are set aside and their appeal is allowed. 8. Appellant no. 35 of 1967. The convictions and sentences as passed against appellant no.1 Bhagwat Gorhi, appellant no. 2 Sheonarayan Chaudhary and appellant no. 3 Brahamanand Paswan are set aside and their appeal is allowed. 8. Appellant no. 4 Sheonath Pandey has been convicted by the trial court in respect of the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been identified by only P. W. 14. It is not safe to convict this appellant on the solitary statement of P. W. 14 who was a chance witness. This appellant was not identified by P. W. 14 in the first Test Identification Parade held by P. W. 23. The evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 10 will show that the Omega watch was found in the house of appellant no. 4. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of P. W. 7 who was a witness to the search. He stated that there were 10 or 15 persons living in the house of this appellant. In this connection the finding of the trial court is also relevant. The trial court at Paragraph 12 of its JUDGMENT : held as follows : "It is true that the evidence does not show that the room in which the watch was found is in exclusive possession of accused Sheonath Pandey." In view of this finding and on the basis of the materials on the record, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that the room in which the Omega watch was found was in the exclusive possession of appellant Sheonath Pandey. In this connection, it is relevant to note that there Were two search witnesses of the seizure (Ext. 3/1). namely, P. Ws. 7 and 31. P. W. 31 has been tendered. Then remains the evidence of P. W. 7 (search witness) and P. W. 10 (the Police Officer). There is contradiction between the evidence of P. Ws. 7 and 10. P. W. 7 stated that the Omega watch was found beneath the bed (Khatia). P. W. 10 stated that the Omega watch was found in the suit - case in the southern room. This circumstance was used by the trial court for the purpose of holding that he took part in the dacoity. 7 and 10. P. W. 7 stated that the Omega watch was found beneath the bed (Khatia). P. W. 10 stated that the Omega watch was found in the suit - case in the southern room. This circumstance was used by the trial court for the purpose of holding that he took part in the dacoity. If this circumstance is excluded from consideration, in view of the finding of the trial court, the conviction of this appellant cannot be sustained on the solitary testimony of P. W. 14 who is a chance witness, There is nothing to suggest that the room in which the suit - case was found was in exclusive possession of Sheonath Pandey. In the circumstance of this case, I give benefit of doubt to appellant no. 4 Sheonath Pandey in respect of the offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Now I consider the case of appellant no. 6 Chinta Sah and appellant no. 7 Rajak Mian, Both of them had made confession before p. W. 25 (Sub-divisional Officer) but, later on, before the trial court, they retracted the confession. They stated in their statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that they did not remember if they ever made confessional statement. The contention of the State Counsel is that it is not a retracted confession, but, in my opinion, it is a retracted confusion. It is a settled law that in a case of retracted confession, the corroboration is necessary. It is a rule of prudence and not a rule of Jaw. There is nothing illegal in convicting a person on the basis of retracted confession provided the court is satisfied that it is voluntary and true. This view is also affirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court (3) in Abdul Gani V. State of U. P. (A. I. R. 1973 S. C., 264) and in (4) Pangambam Kalanjoy Singh V. State of Manipur (A.I. R. 1956 S. C. 9). The confessional statement (Ext. 8/1) made by appellant no. 6 does not inspire confidence because none of the persons named by appellant Chinta Sah is an accused in this case. In his confessional statement, the appellant Abdul Rajak disclosed the name of many persons but only two persons are accused, namely Farook Mian and Chinta Sah. Accused Farook has been acquitted by the trial court. 6 does not inspire confidence because none of the persons named by appellant Chinta Sah is an accused in this case. In his confessional statement, the appellant Abdul Rajak disclosed the name of many persons but only two persons are accused, namely Farook Mian and Chinta Sah. Accused Farook has been acquitted by the trial court. In this circumstance, it is not safe to convict appellant nos. 6 and 7 on the basis of retracted confession. In the absence of any corroboration, I give benefit of doubt to appellant nos. 6 and 7 (Chinta Sah and Rajak Mian). 10. Now I consider the case of Laddoo Chaudhary (appellant no. 5). In consequence of the statement of Laddoo Chaudhary, the gun was recovered from a tank. Appellant Laddoo Chaudhary went inside the tank and took out a gun and cartridges. P. W. 21 prepared the se1zure list in respect of the gun (Ext. 3/5). P. Ws. 15 and 16 were witnesses to the Seizure list. The prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that appellant Laddoo Chaudhary assisted in concealing the gun which he knew or had reason to believe it to be stolen property and uphold the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. In this view of the matter, appellant Laddoo Chaudhary is convicted in respect of the offence under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one Year. 11. In the result, the appeal of appellants Bhagwat Gorhi, Sheonarayan Chaudhary, Brahmanand Paswan, Sheonath Pandey, Chinta Sah and Rajak Mian is allowed and the JUDGMENT : of the trial court is set aside. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant no. 5. Laddoo Chaudhary is affirmed and his appeal is dismissed. Appeal allowed in part.