Last Seen Theory

The Last Seen Theory is a principle of circumstantial evidence used in criminal law to determine the culpability of an accused based on their last known presence with the victim. This theory has deep roots in English common law and has become an essential part of Indian criminal jurisprudence. 

The fundamental presumption behind this theory is that if a person is last seen with the victim before the crime and fails to provide a credible explanation regarding their whereabouts thereafter, a strong inference can be drawn against them. 

However, the Last Seen Theory alone is not conclusive evidence and requires corroboration through additional factors to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

What is Last Seen Theory?

The Last Seen Theory is a legal principle used in criminal law where an accused is presumed to be involved in a crime if they were the last person seen with the victim before their death or disappearance. 

This theory operates on the premise that if the accused fails to provide a credible explanation for their whereabouts after being last seen with the victim, an adverse inference may be drawn against them. 

While this theory aids in circumstantial evidence-based convictions, it cannot stand alone and must be corroborated with additional evidence such as motive, forensic reports, and witness testimony. Courts carefully assess time gaps and other intervening factors before relying on this theory to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Legal Basis of the Last Seen Theory in India

The Last Seen Theory is primarily governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, specifically under Sections 7, 106, and 114:

1. Section 7: Recognises facts that are related to the cause, occasion, or effect of relevant events. If the presence of the accused with the victim is established, it becomes a relevant fact.
2. Section 106: Shifts the burden of proof to the accused when certain facts are exclusively within their knowledge. If the accused was last seen with the deceased, they must provide an explanation for their whereabouts afterward.
3. Section 114: Permits courts to presume the existence of certain facts based on natural human conduct and common occurrences. When the accused was last seen with the victim, and no alternative explanation is provided, the court may infer involvement in the crime.

These provisions collectively provide a legal foundation for the application of the Last Seen Theory in criminal trials.

Judicial Interpretation and Landmark Cases on Last Seen Theory

The judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping the application of the Last Seen Theory. Various Supreme Court rulings have clarified that while this theory can be a critical piece of circumstantial evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction.

State of UP v. Satish (2005)

In State of UP v. Satish, the Supreme Court held that the Last Seen Theory applies when the time gap between the accused’s last sighting with the victim and the discovery of the victim’s dead body is so small that no third party could have intervened. If the accused does not provide a satisfactory explanation, an adverse inference can be drawn.

Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014)

The Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan ruled that the Last Seen Theory alone is insufficient to convict the accused. Additional corroborative evidence, such as motive, forensic evidence, and witness testimony, is required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab (2005)

The Court in Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab emphasised that if no other links in the chain of evidence are present, conviction based solely on the Last Seen Theory is not safe. It must be accompanied by proof of motive and capability of committing the crime.

Surajdeo Mahto v. State of Bihar (2021)

The Supreme Court in Surajdeo Mahto v. State of Bihar relied on State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006), which held that if the accused cannot provide a reasonable explanation for the victim’s disappearance, the court can take an adverse inference against them. Furthermore, the presence of motive strengthens the prosecution’s case.

Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019)

The Supreme Court in Digamber Vaishnav & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh ruled that there must be a reasonable proximity between the time of last seen and the discovery of the dead body. If the time gap is too large, it introduces doubt about the accused’s involvement.

Krishna Mahadev Chavan v. State of Maharashtra (2021)

Krishna Mahadev Chavan v. State of Maharashtra case reiterated that even if the Last Seen Theory is established, if the entire set of circumstances raises doubts, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. If homicidal death is uncertain, conviction cannot be solely based on last seen evidence.

Limitations and Challenges of the Last Seen Theory

Despite its evidentiary value, the Last Seen Theory has inherent limitations that courts must carefully navigate:

1. Time Gap Consideration: If there is a long time gap between the accused’s last sighting with the victim and the crime’s occurrence, the possibility of third-party involvement increases. Courts must assess whether other individuals could have intervened.
2. Requirement of Corroborative Evidence: The Last Seen Theory cannot stand alone; it requires additional evidence such as forensic reports, motive, and witness testimony to complete the chain of evidence.
3. Shifting of Burden of Proof: While Section 106 shifts the burden to the accused, the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law means the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case.
4. Possibility of False Implication: Innocent persons may be falsely implicated based on last-seen evidence, especially in cases where hostile witnesses or planted evidence are involved.
5. Reliability of Witnesses: If the person who claims to have last seen the accused with the victim is an unreliable or stock witness, the credibility of the theory weakens significantly.

How Can the Accused Rebut the Last Seen Theory?

An accused person can challenge the Last Seen Theory through the following defences:

1. Providing an Alibi: If the accused can prove they were in another location at the time of the crime, the theory collapses.
2. Introducing a Third Party: If another person was seen with the victim after the accused, this weakens the prosecution’s case.
3. Questioning the Witness’s Credibility: If the witness providing last-seen evidence is unreliable or has conflicting testimonies, the theory loses credibility.
4. Highlighting a Time Gap: If a significant time gap exists, the accused can argue that multiple factors could have led to the crime, making the theory inconclusive.

Conclusion

The Last Seen Theory serves as a significant tool in criminal investigations and trials, helping courts establish circumstantial links in cases where direct evidence is absent. However, it must not be used in isolation. The prosecution must corroborate it with additional evidence such as motive, forensic findings, and witness testimonies to ensure that an innocent person is not wrongfully convicted.

Judicial precedents have consistently ruled that while this theory can raise suspicion, it cannot, by itself, form the sole basis of conviction unless it is unerringly determinative and rules out any possibility of another person’s involvement.

In essence, the Last Seen Theory bridges the gap between circumstantial evidence and reasonable inference but demands judicial prudence in its application. Courts must carefully examine time gaps, motive, witness credibility, and corroborating evidence to ensure that justice is served while upholding the principles of criminal jurisprudence.