Judgment S.S. PARKAR, J. :---This appeal has been filed by the appellant who was original accused No. 1 in Sessions Case No. 215 of 1981 facing the charges of sections 395 and 397 of I.P.C. along with two other accused. By this appeal the appellant seeks to challenge his conviction for offence under section 397 of I.P.C. and sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed on him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane by his judgment and order dated 23rd March 1982. 2.Prosecution of the appellant-accused commenced in the following manner :- On 24th January 1981 P.W. 1 Suresh Ramanlal Kadakia, who is the complainant, was travelling in local train from Nalla Sopara to Borivali, Bombay at about 7.40 in the evening after his day's work. The said complainant is an architect by profession and resident of Borivali and was having his office at Bhayander. He had owned some chawls at Bhayander. His construction work was going on at Nalla Sopara in January 1981. He used to visit at the site of construction work from morning to evening. He used to travel by local train. It appears that one person by name Jayant Patil with whom accused No. 1 is associated had demanded a room in one of the chawls of the complainant at Bhayander free of charge, which he had declined. Accused No. 1 used to move along with the said Jayant Patil. It appears that the said two persons had gone to the office of the complainant on 4th January 1981 when the complainant was not there but his brother was sitting in the said office. At that time the brother of the complainant was beaten by these people. On 5th January 1981 when the complainant met these persons at the station he was threatened by these persons that he should pay them a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Thereafter on the date of incident i.e. 24th January 1981 in the evening after 7.30 when the complainant along with one of his labourers Hanmanta P.W. 6 were returning home by the local train, six persons including the appellant-accused boarded the train at Vasai railway station. Four out of these six persons came and sat near the complainant. Two of them were standing in the gangway. One of those four persons snatched the newspaper from the hand of Suresh to begin with. Four out of these six persons came and sat near the complainant. Two of them were standing in the gangway. One of those four persons snatched the newspaper from the hand of Suresh to begin with. The other person snatched leather bag from the hand of the complainant containing a sum of Rs. 5,300/-. The appellant-original accused No. 1, who was known to the complainant was carrying a knife in his hand. These persons forcibly took the complainant near the door of the compartment. It is alleged that these persons gave fist blows and one of them who was holding knife viz. the appellant assaulted the complainant with knife near the left eye. When the train arrived at the Bhayander station all the accused persons got down from the side of the train where there was no platform. While complainant and his companion Hanumanta got down at the platform and shouted for help and went to the office of the Station Master and complained about the happening. The complainant received first aid in the office of the Station Master and thereafter Head Constable Dingole P.W. 4 took the complainant at the Bhagwati Hospital at Borivali. Complainant was examined at Bhagwati hospital by Dr. Thakkar P.W. 5 at about 9.30 p.m. On examination the doctor found the following injuries on the person of the complainant :- "1. One C.L.W. 1/2" over left eyebrow laterally sub-cutaneous deep. 2. C.L.W. 1/2" just lateral to left upper eye lid. 3. Swelling over left lower eye lid. 4. Tenderness and swelling over left side of nose 5. Tenderness over right thigh middle third part anteriorly, no external wound. 6. Tenderness over both lyacrest with external injury. 7. Lenear echymosis 2" oblique, right forearm middle 3rd part and ventrally. Abdonominal examination :- Tenderness over right lumber region, abdomen was soft." 3.After the complainant received the treatment P.W. 4 Head Constable Dingole recorded the complaint Exh. 8. He also attached banayan and shirt on the person of the complainant which was blood stained. He thereafter informed the Jamadar at Bassein and the Police Sub Inspector at Palghar Police Station. Jamadar from Bassein Police Station came in the morning to whom Police Head Constable handed over the complaint for registering the offence. P.S.I. Shukla attached to the Palghar Railway Police came to know about the incident at 12 p.m. on 25th January 1981. He thereafter informed the Jamadar at Bassein and the Police Sub Inspector at Palghar Police Station. Jamadar from Bassein Police Station came in the morning to whom Police Head Constable handed over the complaint for registering the offence. P.S.I. Shukla attached to the Palghar Railway Police came to know about the incident at 12 p.m. on 25th January 1981. He verified the complaint and took over the investigation. On 26th January 1981 P.S.I. met the complainant and collected the information. He could not trace any of the accused till 26th January 1981. On 27th January 1981 he recorded the statement of Hanumanta P.W. 6 who was accompanying the complainant at the time of the incident. He searched for the accused but could not trace them until three accused persons including the appellant presented them Selves at the Police Station on 19-2-1981. It seems that the accused had applied for anticipatory bail in the Sessions Court on 8th February 1981 which was rejected. The accused had also produced a sum of Rs. 1,500/- which were attached under panchanama Exh. 12. Thereafter the charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of JMFC (Railways), Virar. The accused were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4.The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 395 and 397 of I.P.C. against the three accused. An alternative charge under section 304 of I.P.C. came to be framed against accused No. 1. The accused including the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of the appellant-accused is of denial. The appellant-accused admitted his association with Jayant Patil and according to him due to the enemity between the complainant and the said Jayant Patil he had been falsely implicated. He denied that he was present in the train at the time of the incident. 5.In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined complainant Suresh as P.W. 1 and one Mr. Hanumanta who was accompanying the complainant at the time of the incident as P.W. 6. The prosecution has also relied on the evidence of Rajaram Nerurkar, Executive Magistrate of Dahanu who held the identification parade in respect of the three accused. The said Executive Magistrate has been examined as Prosecution Witness No. 2. P.W. 3 Subhash Shankar Joshi has been examined by the prosecution as a panch for the panchanama dated 19-2-81 of Rs. The prosecution has also relied on the evidence of Rajaram Nerurkar, Executive Magistrate of Dahanu who held the identification parade in respect of the three accused. The said Executive Magistrate has been examined as Prosecution Witness No. 2. P.W. 3 Subhash Shankar Joshi has been examined by the prosecution as a panch for the panchanama dated 19-2-81 of Rs. 1500/- comprising 15 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each which were produced by the appellant. P.W. 4 Shiva Dingole is the Police Head Constable attached to Palghar Railway Police Station who had taken the complainant to the hospital for treatment and recorded the complaint dated 24-1-1981. Deviprakash Thakkar is the doctor, who has been examined as P.W. 5, who examined the complainant on the night of the incident at Bhagwati Hospital at Borivali. P.W. 7 is Prabhakar Gopal Shukla, Police Sub Inspector attached to Palghar Railway Police who conducted the investigation of this case. Apart from this there is panchanama of attachment of clothes of the injured Exh. 19 and panchnama of scene of offence dated 26th January 1981 (Exh. 20). 6.The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused has assailed the conviction of the appellant accused. His contention is that there is no sufficient evidence to convict the appellant and except for the evidence of P.W. 1 complainant there is no other evidence on record to corroborate the same. According to him the name of the appellant, who was known to the complainant, was not disclosed at the earliest juncture when the complainant went to the office of the Station Master at Bhayander railway platform. He further argued that Hanumanta P.W. 6, who was accompanying the complainant, did not know the appellant and he could not identify the appellant at the identification parade nor P.W. 6 was in a position to identify any of the accused including the appellant. He also argued that although according to the complainant the knife was used against him, the medical evidence does not support the case of the complainant inasmuch as no injury was found on the person of the complainant which was caused by a knife. As against this the submission of Ms. He also argued that although according to the complainant the knife was used against him, the medical evidence does not support the case of the complainant inasmuch as no injury was found on the person of the complainant which was caused by a knife. As against this the submission of Ms. Kantharia on behalf of the State is that the complainant has disclosed the name of the appellant who was known to him in the F.I.R. itself and, therefore, the infirmity in holding the identification parade did not affect the prosecution case obviously so far as the appellant is concerned. 7.We have gone through the evidence of the complainant who has been examined as P.W. 1. It appears that there was some enemity between him and one Jayant Patil regarding hire of room at Bhayander in the Chawl belonging to the complainant. He also states that previously the said Jayant Patil had held out threats to him and demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. According to him on the date of incident when he was travelling in the train in the evening on his way home, six persons had got in the train at Vasai station and they snatched away the newspaper and his leather bag containing cash of Rs. 5300/-. According to him one of the six persons opened the knife and gave blow with the said knife near his left eye. According to him he was also wearing a wrist watch and was having diary and spectacles which were also removed from his person. He also stated that he lodged NC. complaints with Virar Police, Bhayander Police and Borivali Police as regards the threats which were held out to him by Jayant Patil and the appellant at Nalla Sopara Railway Station. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 5 Dr. Thakkar who examined the complainant in Bhagwati Hospital at Borivali on the night of the incident found two contused lacerated wounds, one over left eyebrow laterally sub-cutaneous deep and another on the left upper eye lid. Other injuries noticed by the doctor were swelling and tenderness. According to the said doctor those injuries on the person of the complainant were fresh and injury Nos. 1 and 2 were bleeding. He stated that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were possible by any blunt weapon and the remaining injuries were possible with any hard and blunt substance like fist blows. According to the said doctor those injuries on the person of the complainant were fresh and injury Nos. 1 and 2 were bleeding. He stated that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were possible by any blunt weapon and the remaining injuries were possible with any hard and blunt substance like fist blows. Doctor did not say that those injuries were possible by knife as alleged by the complainant nor the said suggestion was put to the said doctor on behalf of the prosecution. The case of the complainant, therefore, as regards assault on him by the appellant is negatived by the medical evidence. Not only this, but whereas the complainant has stated categorically in his complaint dated 24th January 1981 which was recorded in the night in Bhagwati Hospital, that Harish i.e. the appellant had caused grievous hurt to him near the left eye by the knife which was in his hand, this allegation in the complaint does not find place in his deposition in the Court and on the contrary his case before the Court is that one of the six (persons) opened the knife and he was given a blow with that knife near his left eye. Now apart from the evidence of the complainant, there is no other evidence or circumstance which connect the appellant-accused with the incident of assault and robbery on the complainant. It is true that the appellant was known to the complainant and his name was disclosed in the F.I.R. by the complainant. But this inconsistency in the evidence of the complainant, and his deviation from his allegation in the complaint before the Court does not inspire confidence, about his deposition before the Court. It seems he is not sure whether it was appellant who was holding the knife and had assaulted him with knife or any other accused persons. The F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence but can be used only for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction. Next the complainant has not stated that the appellant accused had used fist blows on him. The evidence of P.W. 6 Hanumanta who was accompanying P.W. 1 complainant is of no assistance inasmuch as he had not been able to identify the appellant-accused. Next the complainant has not stated that the appellant accused had used fist blows on him. The evidence of P.W. 6 Hanumanta who was accompanying P.W. 1 complainant is of no assistance inasmuch as he had not been able to identify the appellant-accused. It is well established principle of law that if the accused is not previously known, a fair identification parade should be held and the witnesses should be in a position to identify the accused at such identification parade. The identification parade held by P.W. 2 has been rejected by the trial Court in toto for the reasons, which in our view are very cogent, as given in para 12 of the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court has also observed that the evidence of Hanumanta P.W. 6 is not of any help to the prosecution as he could not identify those persons. His evidence has been accepted by the trial Court only to the extent that that witness was present and he spoke of the knife blow being given to the complainant although he did not say that the knife blow was given to the complainant by the appellant but he stated only that one of the persons had a knife with him. The evidence with regard to the production of currency notes by the appellant is also of no help to the prosecution to connect the appellant-accused with the said crime because the complainant in his evidence has stated that he could not identify the notes which were allegedly produced by appellant accused No. 1 as belonging to him. The fact that the complainant had disclosed the name of the appellant in the complaint and relied on by the trial Court is not of much significance inasmuch as it is not the case of the prosecution that the name of the appellant was disclosed by the complainant in the office of the Station Master. Then it is also significant to note that the complaint was not recorded immediately by the Head Constable in the office of the Station Master but as the evidence of Head Constable shows that the complainant was taken to the Bhagwati Hospital first before recording of the complaint and the complaint was recorded at about 9.45 p.m. in that night in the hospital after the complainant was treated by the doctor. As per the evidence of P.W.-4 Police Head Constable he asked the complainant whether he could record his complaint but the complainant insisted upon medical aid first. Since there is sole testimony of P.W. 1 as regards the incident and the presence of the appellant and there is no other corroborating circumstance to connect the appellant-accused with the crime, in view of the contradiction or inconsistency between the medical evidence and the testimony of this sole witness-complainant it is hazardous to base conviction or uphold the conviction of the appellant for such a serious crime particularly in view of the fact that Jayant Patil and the complainant were on cross terms and the appellant used to be with Jayant Patil. 8.The case of the accused-appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. is that because of the association of the appellant with Jayant Patil who was, according to the appellant on cross terms with the complainant, appellant was falsely implicated. The evidence of the sole witness i.e. the complainant does not inspire confidence in view of the fact that the medical evidence does not support his allegations inasmuch as no injury was received by the complainant with the knife as alleged by him and even with regard to the use of the knife, the complainant himself in para 2 of his deposition before the Court attributes it to 'one of the six' and not to the appellant whom he knew, though in the complaint he attributed it specifically to the appellant. 9.We have gone through the reasoning given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The learned trial Judge has tried to reconcile these glaring inconsistencies in the medical evidence and the substantive evidence so also in the substantive evidence and the F.I.R. by stating as follows :- "Well, Suresh has stated categorically that a knife was used and the presence of the bleeding injury would definitely show the use of the sharp and pointed weapon. I find there is complete corroboration from the evidence of the medical officer." We regret that we cannot agree with this reasoning which is given by the learned trial judge in para 11 of his judgment. I find there is complete corroboration from the evidence of the medical officer." We regret that we cannot agree with this reasoning which is given by the learned trial judge in para 11 of his judgment. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of (Mafabhai Raval v. State of Gujrat)1, reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 2186 the Court cannot substitute its own opinion in preference to the medical opinion given by the expert. The doctor has not said that the bleeding injury was caused by sharp and pointed weapon as stated by the trial Court but on the contrary the doctor has stated that those bleeding injuries were possible by any blunt weapon. There was not even suggestion put to the doctor nor it is stated by the doctor that those injuries were possible by knife. In view of the aforesaid inconsistencies and infirmities in the prosecution case, we are of the view that the prosecution has not brought home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The aforesaid discrepancies and the association of the appellant-accused with Jayant Patil who admittedly was on cross terms with the complainant creates doubt in our mind as to the veracity of the complainant who is the only witness. In the aforesaid circumstances, we cannot uphold the conviction of the appellant-accused. 10.We, therefore, set aside the order of conviction under section 397 of the I.P.C. and sentence of seven years RI imposed on the appellant-accused. We thus allow the appeal. Appellant is accordingly acquitted. Appellant-accused is already on bail. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.