Do ‘Disclosure Statement’ and ‘Judicial Confession’ implicating him/herself and some other person seal the fate of the maker and other person irretrievably and conclusively?

Via disclosure statement before police U/S 161 and confessional statement before Magistrate U/S 164 of the CrPC, main accused person confesses to his guilt and also names some other person as co-accused. Does it seal the fate of the accused and co-accused irretrievably and conclusively? However, later on, main accused person alleges that he had given the statement due to the pressure exerted by the police. Can accused person retract the confessional statement and what is evidentiary value of retracted confession?
- Section 133 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Court may presume existence of certain facts……………………………………………………………...(b) That an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars.....

Section 28 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise relevant

Section 29 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy etc

Section 30 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence

- Section 164 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Recording of confession s and statements

Section 306 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Tender of pardon to accomplice.

Section 321 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Withdrawal from prosecution.

Note: 
1. The general rule regarding corroboration that has emerged is not a rule of law but merely a rule of practice which has acquired the force of rule of law in both India and England. The rule states that: A conviction based on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not illegal but according to prudence it is not safe to rely upon uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice and thus judges must exercise extreme caution and care while considering uncorroborated accomplice evidence.
2. A confession is substantive evidence against its maker. If it has been duly recorded and suffers from no legal infirmity, it would suffice to convict the accused who made the confession, though as a matter of prudence, the Court expects some corroboration before acting upon it. Even then slight corroboration would suffice. It is a settled rule of evidence that unless a retracted confession is corroborated in material particulars, it is not prudent to pass a conviction on its strength alone.