INDU MALHOTRA AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.34 – Prosecution case that complainant’s elder son was shot dead inside a University – Complainant-PW-4 and his younger son-PW-5 stated that they had seen the incident and they had taken victim to the hospital – Victim was declared dead – Three accused persons including both the appellants were apprehended and arraigned – All the three accused persons refused to undergo Test Identification Parade and pleaded not guilty – The Trial Court convicted all the three accused persons for having committed murder and sentenced them to imprisonment for life – All three accused persons filed appeals before the High Court which was dismissed – Two accused persons filed appeal before the Supreme Court – Held: There were clear improvements made by PW-4 and PW-5 in their statements – PW-4 had stated he, PW-5 along with ‘one unknown person’ had lifted victim from the spot to take him to hospital – Whereas, PW-5 does not mention presence of any third person – Further, ruqqa indicated that the deceased was brought by one ‘S’ and the same is a significant circumstance which indicates that neither PW-4 nor PW-5 were present at the scene of offence – DW-4 and DW-5 stated that it was them who had taken victim to the hospital and neither PW-4 nor PW-5 were present at the scene of occurrence – Neither the author of first and second FSL reports in the context of the seizure and recovery of weapons W/1 and W/2 in FIR No.311; nor the author of the third FSL report in context of FIR No.781(FIR in present case) were examined by the prosecution in the course of the evidence – The discrepancies which were noticed in the FSL reports in both abovementioned FIRs could have been explained by the authors of the FSL reports and their examination being not done would entitle accused benefit of doubt – As far as Test Identification Parade is concerned, there is no specific provision either in the CrPC or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which lends statutory authority to an identification parade – The identification in the course of TIP is intended to lend assurance to the identity of the accused – The finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo an identification parade – In the present case, the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 at the scene of occurrence is seriously in doubt – The ballistics evidence connecting the empty cartridges and the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased with an alleged weapon of offence is contradictory and suffers from serious infirmities – Therefore, a refusal to undergo a TIP assumes secondary importance and cannot survive independently in the absence of it being a substantive piece of evidence – The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt.