It is also distinguished from replacement. Although a retracted confession is admissible against a co-accused by virtue of s. “this claim covers not only cases of replacement pure and Simple but of rehabilitation and modernisation. State of Madras(2) where the value of a confession was compared with the value of accomplice evidence. First, the structure of the CJEU’s judgment itself and its choice of words support this conclusion. In order to answer that question, it is necessary to set out the central paragraphs of the CJEU’s judgment which support the ruling in that judgment (para 35), which we have quoted in para 12 above.
Where, for instance, the Riwaj-i-am laid down a custom in consonance with the general agricultural custom of the State, very strong proof would be required to displace this presumption, but where, on the and this process of rehabilitation is in a sense a continual process. Accordingly, the provisions of the Evidence Act do not prevent the Property Lawyers India High Court from taking into consideration a retracted confession against the confessing accused and his co-accused. The corroboration Property Advocates in India the full sense implies corroboration not only as to the factum of the crime but also as to the connection of the co-accused with that crime.
” The Property Lawyers in India Property Advocate in High Court India State further relies upon the observations of Govinda Menon J. In our view the phrase “an adequate indemnity” in para 29 of the judgment, when construed in the context of the wider judgment, and in particular the paragraphs which we have quoted in para 43 above, bears a broader meaning than that which Henderson J and the Court of Appeal favoured, and suggests that the CJEU has given member state courts a discretion to provide reasonable redress in the form of interest in addition to the mandatory repayment of any wrongly levied tax, interest and penalties.
30 of the Indian Evidence Act, as a matter of prudence and practice a court would not ordinarily act upon it to convict a co-accused without corroboration. Thirdly, prior and subsequent case law of the CJEU is consistent with this interpretation. For though the entries in the Riwaj-i-am are entitled to an initial presumption in favour of their correctness, the quantum of evidence necessary to rebut this presumption would vary with the facts and circumstances of each particular case.