Last Seen Theory under Law of evidence
Last Seen Theory — Law of Evidence
What is the Last Seen Theory?
The Last Seen Theory is a principle used in criminal and civil law to prove the involvement of a person in a crime or event by establishing that the accused was the last person seen with the victim before the occurrence of the incident (such as murder, disappearance, or assault).
It is an inferential mode of proof where direct evidence of the crime may be absent, but circumstantial evidence based on the accused being last seen with the victim creates a strong presumption of their involvement.
Why is it Important?
Often in criminal cases, direct evidence (like eyewitnesses to the actual crime) is unavailable.
The Last Seen Theory helps fill this gap by showing that the accused was the last person in contact with the victim.
If the victim goes missing or is found dead shortly after being last seen with the accused, this raises a presumption of guilt, unless the accused can offer a reasonable explanation.
Legal Principles Behind Last Seen Theory
Presumption, not proof: Being last seen with the victim is not conclusive proof of guilt but creates a strong presumption.
The burden shifts to the accused to provide a satisfactory explanation for their last meeting.
The court considers this presumption along with other circumstantial evidence to arrive at a verdict.
It is often used in conjunction with other evidence (motive, opportunity, means).
Application
Used extensively in murder, kidnapping, and disappearance cases.
Establishes that the accused had the opportunity and was likely involved.
Helps to exclude other suspects when no one else was seen with the victim.
Leading Case Laws
1. K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR (3) 1)
The Supreme Court referred to last seen evidence as strong circumstantial evidence.
It held that the accused being last seen with the victim, combined with other facts, can lead to conviction if the accused fails to provide a reasonable explanation.
2. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984 AIR 1622, 1984 SCR (2) 45)
The Court emphasized that last seen evidence is a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
For conviction, all circumstances, including last seen theory, must form a complete and consistent chain.
3. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010 AIR SCW 4361)
The Supreme Court upheld conviction where the accused was last seen with the victim before her murder.
The Court observed that the presence of the accused at the crime scene or last contact is a strong piece of evidence.
4. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005 AIR SC 649)
The Court held that being last seen with the victim is not alone sufficient; it must be corroborated by other material evidence.
The accused must be given a chance to explain the circumstances.
Important Points:
Last seen theory is circumstantial evidence — not direct evidence.
It creates a prima facie case but does not replace the need for other supporting evidence.
Courts analyze the entire chain of events, and if the accused cannot explain their last presence, the inference of guilt strengthens.
The theory applies in situations where the victim’s death or disappearance is suspicious and sudden after the last meeting with the accused.
Illustration:
A person (victim) is found murdered.
The accused was the last person to be seen with the victim on the night of the murder.
No other suspects were near the victim.
The accused fails to provide a credible alibi or explanation.
The Court may infer that the accused caused the victim’s death based on the last seen theory.
Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature | Circumstantial evidence |
| Purpose | To prove involvement where direct evidence is absent |
| Presumption | Strong but rebuttable presumption of guilt |
| Burden | On accused to explain presence |
| Reliance | On totality of evidence, not just last seen alone |
| Applicable cases | Murder, disappearance, kidnapping |
RELATED Blog
0 comments