Legal Assistance

Last Seen Together

    

    The Supreme Court found that Shahzad Khan's evidence showed that the internal organs of the deceased Manoj were tied together with ropes and blood gushed out of his nostrils. It was noted that if the prosecution succeeded in proving that there is clear evidence that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and that reasonable conclusions can be drawn from this evidence, the burden of proof will pass to the accused under section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court found that there was no conclusive evidence or evidence to support the statements of the investigation and that the blood stain found on the crime weapon could not be determined.

    The disclosure of the complainant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act following his arrest led to the recovery of the bicycle the deceased had ridden that night. 

    As we have said in the present case, the public prosecutor's office has established that the deceased was last seen alive accompanied by the accused. In this case, the court found that the accused was unable to give an explanation of the circumstances in which he had gone in the company of the deceased. The court therefore did not take into account the fact that they were last seen together, but took into account the circumstances before and after the date on which the deceased was seen in the presence of the respondent. 

    

       The indictment was based on the decision of the state of Rajasthan in Kashi Ram (2006), [12] SCC 254, which insisted that in a situation where the deceased was last seen with the accused, there was a presumption that the accused had murdered the deceased. 

    

    In Jaswant Gir v Punjab [20], the court stated that it was not possible to convict the accused on the basis of the last evidence in the chain of circumstantial evidence in the absence of other links. In view of these factors, evidence of the recovery of incriminating material could be discarded if there was a sufficient time between the case in which the accused was last seen with the deceased and the absence of other incriminating evidence to complete the chain of circumstances establishing the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court considers that the accused should be favored by the court in case of doubt. It is interesting to note that, on appeal, the state could not prove the case against him on the basis of last seen and other evidence that was unconvincing.

  

    When it comes to circumstantial evidence, it is up to the prosecution to prove a chain of complete weaknesses and gaps that it cannot heal with a false defense plea. A conviction cannot be based on the only circumstances that are evident. It should be noted that the principle of "last seen together" can only be applied if the court has confirmed the evidence, otherwise no conviction can be pronounced. 

    The theory of the "last seen together" comes into play when there is a time gap between the time that accused and deceased were last seen together and the last living person when the deceased is found dead, so that the small chance that another person than the accused is the perpetrator becomes impossible. Theories of "last encounter" always come into play when there are time gaps between the times when the accused or deceased was first seen together, when the last living person, when he or she is found dead, and so it is hardly possible that the person other than the accused could be the perpetrator of a crime. 

      

    In the absence of other positive evidence to suggest that the accused and deceased were last seen together, it is dangerous to reach a guilty verdict in the case. In some cases, it is difficult to determine when the deceased was last seen with the accused, because the time between when another person can come forward is long. In some cases, there may be positive evidence against the accused, but the deceased may have last been seen by a witness or PWS. 

    The verdict of 4 September overturned the guilty verdict of the Rajasthan Supreme Court and acquitted two people in a 2001 murder case. Judges Dipak Misra and R. Banumathi found that there was no other clear evidence of a motive and that the accused could not be convicted because the facts indicated that the accused had been there with the victims. It was decided that it was up to the police to pull the strings in murder cases on the basis of circumstantial evidence and eyewitnesses, as in many high-profile crimes.

    

    In the state of Rajasthan v Kashi Ram (2006) [11] [660], the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act are unambiguous and categorical and set out the facts and knowledge of the person and that the burden of proof is with the person. In this case, the complainants had been convicted of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Criminal Code and had contested the conviction. The case was investigated on its own facts without invoking the doctrine.