https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283064 A prior final finding on age barred the appellant from reopening juvenility under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the benefit of that Act was denied. A judicial confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC, found voluntary and supported by independent material, was admissible against its maker; however, a co-accused's confession was not substantive evidence and could not, by itself, establish liability against others because Section 10 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable after the conspiracy had ended. On the evidence, Sidharth's conviction was sustained because independent circumstances proved his participation, while Rohan Prakash's conviction was set aside because the case against him rested only on suspicion and the co-accused's confession. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Sep 2019 17:11:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283064 A prior final finding on age barred the appellant from reopening juvenility under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and the benefit of that Act was denied. A judicial confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC, found voluntary and supported by independent material, was admissible against its maker; however, a co-accused's confession was not substantive evidence and could not, by itself, establish liability against others because Section 10 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable after the conspiracy had ended. On the evidence, Sidharth's conviction was sustained because independent circumstances proved his participation, while Rohan Prakash's conviction was set aside because the case against him rested only on suspicion and the co-accused's confession. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283064