L. RATH, J. ( 1 ) THESE three revisions arise out of the same incident and same trial but have been preferred by different accused and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. Altogether six persons were put on trial for charges under sections 395 and 457, I. P. C. for having committed dacoity on 6/7-8-1986 at about 2. 45 a. m. in the house of P. W. 7 when he was absent and the inmates of the house were his wife and his nephew. The nephew (P. W. 1) was sleeping on the Verandah of the house along with P. Ws. 11 and 12. He was awakened by six persons at the dead of the night and at the point of dagger was asked to callout his aunt which, because of the threat, he complied with. After the aunt came four persons at the point of dagger forcibly entered inside the house and committed dacoity of gold ornaments, box containing Rs. 220/- and some bell-metal articles. After the dacoits left, P. W. 1 left by bus for Kesapur to inform his uncle about the incident. At the Kesapur Bazar he sighted two of the accused, the petitioners in Criminal Revisions No. 196/89, namely Udhab Bisoi and Deepak Mohanty. P. W. 7 received the information at Kesapur and at of them came to Kesapur Bazar but found the two persons to be absent and were informed that they had left by bus booking ticket to Bhubaneswar. All of them chased them in a truck and learnt that they had got down at Balugaon Fish Market. At the Balugaon Fish Market they again sighted Udhab and Deepak and apprehended them. An F. I. R. was lodged with the officer-incharge, Rambha Police Station who was accidently there. He took all of them to the Rambha Police Station. Thereafter investigation was taken up in course of which some stolen articles were recovered and the other accused were apprehended and charge-sheet was submitted. The trial Judge convicted all the accused under sections 395 and 457, I. P. C. and sentenced them to five years R. I. and fine of Rs. Thereafter investigation was taken up in course of which some stolen articles were recovered and the other accused were apprehended and charge-sheet was submitted. The trial Judge convicted all the accused under sections 395 and 457, I. P. C. and sentenced them to five years R. I. and fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count, in default to undergo three months R. I. more, with direction for the substantive sentences to run concurrently, but in appeal two accused, namely Satrughna Badtia and Kailash Mohanty were acquitted while the conviction and sentence of the petitioners were maintained. ( 2 ) SO far as the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 184 of 1989, Prafulla Chandra Panda is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are only three items of evidence against him to connect him with the crime, namely, (i) the recovery made from the house of another accused Prafulla Mohanty whose house he pointed out, (if) the extra judicial confession of the two co-accused Tuna alia Deepak Mohanty and Udhab Bisoi, and (iii) his identification in court by P. W s. 1 and 2. It is the submission of the learned counsel that such evidence did not establish any of the charges against him. ( 3 ) SO far as evidence of the petitioners Tuna alias Deepak Mohanty and Udhab Bisoi having pointed out the house of petitioner Prafulla Chandra Panda is concerned, the evidence itself shows the conduct of the petitioner to be in no way incriminating. The mere pointing out the house of a person could never be a piece of evidence against him even section 8 of the Evidence Act. The extra-judicial confession of a co-accused, even though inculpatory in nature, yet cannot be used to secure a conviction of an accused unless it corroborates some substantive evidence. The identification in court for the first time of the petitioner is not reliable evidence as has been held by catena of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court. If such evidences are ruled out, the conviction of the petitioner Prafulla Chandra Panda cannot be secured only upon the extra Judicial confession of co-accused which was also retracted. In that view of the matter, the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 184/89 Prafulla Chandra Panda much be held to be not guilty of the offence and hence is acquitted. If such evidences are ruled out, the conviction of the petitioner Prafulla Chandra Panda cannot be secured only upon the extra Judicial confession of co-accused which was also retracted. In that view of the matter, the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 184/89 Prafulla Chandra Panda much be held to be not guilty of the offence and hence is acquitted. ( 4 ) SO far as the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 196/89 are concerned, both of them have been identified not only in tree T. I. parade but also at Kesapur Bazar by P. W. 1. They have been also identified in the court to have taken part in the crime. As such their culpable conduct in participating in the occurrence can never be doubted as has been concurrently found by the two courts below. Similarly so far as the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 249 of 1989 is concerned, his culpable conduct has been established by identification in the T. I. parade as well as in the Court and by recovery from his house of a large number of articles as per Ext. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the seizure witnesses have not supported the seizure, but it is fairly conceded by him that the seizure has been deposed to by the Investigating Officer. It is the consistent view of the Courts that where seizure witness turns hostile, the seizure can yet be acted upon if the Investigating Officerts evidence is otherwise credible and has no malice. Nothing of the sort was pointed out and hence the seizure from the petitioner has been rightly believed. The seized articles have also been identified in the T. I Parade to be the looked property. Because of such reason, the conclusion reached by both the courts below of the culpable conduct of the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 249 of 1989 also cannot be interfered with. ( 5 ) EVEN so the question is as to the offence committed. Admittedly the charge against the petitioners was that only six persons had participated in the crime. Since two had been acquitted by the Appellate Courts and Prafulla Chandra Panda, the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 184/89 has been acquitted, the charge under section 395 I. P. C. is not sustainable against the three other petitioners and has. to fail. Admittedly the charge against the petitioners was that only six persons had participated in the crime. Since two had been acquitted by the Appellate Courts and Prafulla Chandra Panda, the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 184/89 has been acquitted, the charge under section 395 I. P. C. is not sustainable against the three other petitioners and has. to fail. Though the charge fails, yet the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 196/89 and Criminal Revision No. 2491 89 had admittedly taken part in the occurrence as alleged. They hence committed the offence of robbery and are liable to be convicted under section 392, I. P. C. Their conviction as such under section 395 I. P. C. is set aside and instead they are convicted under section 392 I. P. C. and their sentence is modified from five-years R. I. to four years R. I. but the sentence of fine is maintained. ( 6 ) IN the result, Criminal Revision No. 184/ 89 is allowed and Criminal Revision Nos. 196/89 and 249/89 are dismissed subject to modification of conviction and sentence as stated above. Revision allowed. Other two revisions dismissed except modification in sentence. .