LAST SEEN TOGETHER

The theory of last seen together is one where two persons are seen together alive and after
an interval of time, one of them is found alive and the other dead. If the period between the
two is short, presumption as to the person alive being the author of death of the other can be
drawn. Time gap should be such as to rule out possibility of somebody else committing the
crime. Last seen together principle is one of the latest principles which is taken into
consideration in establishing the guilt of the accused. In the absence of eye-witnesses and
tangible evidence, it is the last resort of the prosecution in a murder case - the person last seen
with the victim is presumed to be the murderer, thus, shifting the onus onto the accused to
prove otherwise or come up with an alibi 1. The circumstance of last seen together does not
by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the
crime! There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the
crime! There may be cases where on account of close proximity of place and time between
the event of the accused having been last seen with the deceased and the factum of death a
rational mind may be persuaded to reach an irresistible conclusion that either the accused
should explain how and in what circumstances the victim suffered the death or should own
the liability for the homicide2.

Last Seen Together but Acquitted

The Supreme Court has acquitted the accused appellants in the following cases despite the
fact that they were last seen together with the deceased/victims.

1SC uses 'last seen with' theory to convict killer, Times of India, Oct 26, 2006 , Yuvaraj Ambar
Mohite vs State of Maharashtra, decided by Supreme Court of India on 19 October,
2006 http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1160791/, [2006 (10) SCALE
2 AIR 2002 SC 3064

In Jaswant Gir v. Punjab,3the Apex Court observed that even assuming that the deceased had
accompanied the accused in their vehicle, that circumstance by itself did not lead to the
irresistible conclusion that the appellant and his companion had killed the deceased and
thrown the dead body in the culvert. It could not be presumed that the appellant and his
companions were responsible for the murder, though grave suspicion arose against the
accused. There was considerable time-gap between the deceased boarding the vehicle of the
appellant and the time when PW 11 found the dead body. In the absence of any other links in
the chain of circumstantial evidence, it was held not possible to convict the appellant solely
on the basis of the "last-seen" evidence.

In State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran 4 the deceased honeymoon couple arrived in Goa from
Mumbai and stayed in a hotel. They went for sight-seeing at Ozran, Vagator with Vincent,
the car driver. He had also taken them for the sight-seeing trip a day earlier as well.
However, in the light of the factors that evidence regarding the recovery of the incriminating
materials from the accused persons has been discarded; that there has been sufficient time gap
between the instances when the accused persons were last seen together with the deceased
persons; and in the absence of any other corroborative piece of evidence to complete the
chain of circumstances to fasten the guilt on the accused couple, the Apex Court was of the
opinion that the accused have been rightly given the benefit of doubt by the courts below. It is
interesting to note that the State even on appeal, could not prove the case as it merely based
on the last seen together and the other evidence was not convincing.

3 2005(12) SCC 438

4 2007 (3) SCALE 740

In SK. Yusuf v. West Bengal5, the Supreme Court has reiterated its observation in State of U.P.
v. Satish 6 that the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of
time when the accused and deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found
dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the
crime becomes impossible. It was held that where there is a long time-gap between last seen
together and the crime, and there is the possibility of other persons intervening, it is
hazardous to rely on the theory of last seen together 7. Even if time gap is less and there is
no possibility of others intervening, it is safer to look for corroboration8.

In Sunil Rai @ Paua & Ors vs Union Territory, Chandigarh9, the three appellants are serving
life sentences for committing murder of deceased Dile Ram. They were never on bail and
have, thus, completed over ten years of incarceration. The deceased was last seen being
chased by the appellants yelling at him and shouting that they would not spare him. Sunil Rai
allegedly made an extra judicial confession to the effect that he along with the other accuseds
hit the deceased with brickbats and stones at about 9:00pm in the night between March 29
and 30, 2001, causing injuries to him that led to his death. The judgments and orders of the
High Court and the trial Court were held completely unsustainable as the witnesses had
turned hostile and medical examinations were not supporting the prosecution story. The extra
judicial confession was not written and reliable. Time gap between the last seen together and
the death was so large and there was no reliable additional evidence to establish the crime.
Unfortunately, the accused had suffered 10 years in jail before the Apex Court held the
acquitted.

5 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2365. (S.C.)

6 2005 (3) SCC 114
7 2003 S.C.C. (Crim) 20: 2002 Cr.L.J. 4664
8 [2006 (10) SCC 172]
9 2010 Cr.L.J. 769;

Rape Murder of Girl Child-Rarest of Rare Cases

In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh10, the accused respondent was already an accused in

another rape case of an 8 yrs. old girl and had got acquitted. He went to the house of deceased
Sneha @ Gangu 4 yrs. old. The deceased was then playing near the gate of her house. After
the respondent left the house, no one in that house had seen Gangu alive. There was evidence
that the respondent took Gangu to the shop of Mahadeo, and later to the shop of Motiram,
and thereafter to a farm whereon pulses and cotton were cultivated. He chose that venue for
sexually ravishing that little child and smothering her to death. The spot was pointed out by
the respondent [after his arrest] wherefrom the dead body of Gangu was traced out. The
accused could not give any explanation whatsoever for the injuries on his private parts. The
Supreme Court reversed the Lower Courts judgment and convicted the respondent basing on
last seen principle as there was other circumstantial and medical evidence.

Shivaji @ Dadya Shankar Alhat v. State of Maharashtra 11 was a gruesome rape murder case
of tiny young girl aged 9 yrs studying 5th class. As the accused, [a B.A., B.Ed., teacher,]
offered fuel wood, the deceased had gone with him together to the Hills. She was last seen in
the company of the deceased and injury on the abdomen and the rope by which the deceased
was strangulated were recovered at the instance of the accused and the fact that the accused
had absconded and was arrested from a place where he was hiding and the presence of blood
on his cloth was a relevant factor. The plea of alibi set up has not been established. Supreme
Court had confirmed the death penalty.

Md.Mannan @ Abdul Mannan v. State of Bihar12, was another ghastly rape murder case of an
8 years old girl. The appellant was working as Mason in the House of Devi Kant Jha, grand10 Aftab Alam, J. Supreme Court Of India On 4 July, 2011Http://Indiankanoon.Org/Doc/175306/
11 2000 (1) ALD Cri 606, JT 1999 (9) SC 513
12 AIR 2009 SC 56

father of deceased (PW-8); He had sent the deceased Kalyani Kumari to the betel-shop to get
betel. He had proceeded towards the betel-shop few minutes after the deceased left. He was
last seen with the deceased going together on a bicycle. He made a confession leading to the
recovery of dead body from a field. The dead body of Kalyani Kumari had injury on the
private parts, her nails were munched and there were marks of bruises all over the body. The
rape and murder by the appellant on the victim girl has been proved by medical evidence. The
Apex Court conceded that it was the rarest of the rare cases and confirmed the death
penalty. Interestingly, the judgment of Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.,quoted no judicial
precedents at all.

Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. The State of Mahrashtra, 13 was yet another brutal, gruesome
rape murder case of a 3 year old girl. The accused had taken the victim Vandana from her
home on the pretext of purchasing her biscuits. Neither Vandana nor the accused returned to
the house. The accused was seen with the deceased at the bus stand. Thereafter, the nude
body of Vandana was found in the field, the next day. The Apex Court held that on the basis
of the `last seen together' theory and other direct and circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
has been able to establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The Court opined that the
accused had committed the crime in the most brutal manner and, thereafter, he opted not to
explain any circumstances and just took up the plea of false implication, which is
unbelievable and unsustainable. The Court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the
judgment of the High Court confirming the death penalty. Thus, the Courts have been
requiring the accused to explain any intervening fact after the last seen together with the
deceased whenever there was medical or other evidence corroborating with the last seen
together.

Other Convictions
In Joseph s/o Kooveli Poulo v. State of Kerala14, the deceased was taken away from the
convent by the appellant under a false pretext and she was last seen alive only in his
13 Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J., Supreme Court of India, decided on 20 April,
2011,http://Indiankanoon.Org/Doc/625626/

company. On the information furnished by the appellant, the jewels of the deceased which
were sold by the appellant, were seized. The Court had convicted the accused for the offence
of murder basing on the last seen together principle but gave the benefit of doubt to the
accused for the offence under S. 376 as there was no other incriminating evidence to prove
the offence of rape.

In Mohibur Rahman and anr. v. State of Assam 15, the Apex Court considered three pieces of
incriminating circumstantial evidence against the main accused Taijuddin viz., i) the
deceased Rahul was last seen in the company of the accused Taijuddin ii) He gave a false
explanation about the whereabouts of the deceased and iii) the accused was having
knowledge of the dead body cut into two pieces (meaning thereby having died an unnatural
death on being subjected to deadly violence) being buried- coupled with the fact of failure on
the part of the accused to offer any reasonable explanation of any of the said circumstancesto hold sufficient to fasten the liability of murder on the accused. The Court on the other
hand held that merely because the other accused/appellant Mohibir was last seen with the
deceased a few unascertainable number of days before the death of the deceased, he cannot
be held liable for the offence of having caused the death of the deceased without any further
evidence to establish the crime. Therefore, Taijuddins conviction was upheld and Mohibir
was acquitted by the apex court.

In Anil Kumar v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police16 the Sessions Court relying primarily on
the evidence of P W.2 (P W.1 having turned hostile) and P W.3 the Doctor and the recovery of
the murder weapon, a knife, at the instance of the appellant, and the fact that the deceased and
the appellant had been last seen together in the van, convicted the appellant. The conviction
was affirmed by the High Court. But, the Apex Court held that the Lower Courts conviction
14 Ibid.
15 (2012) 4 SCC 37
16 AIR 2002 SC 3064

could not be sustained as the medical evidence far from supporting the prosecution story
destroys its very substratum.

In Ravindra Reddy v. Shaik Masthan and ors ,17 A1, A2 and the deceased were last seen
together going on a scooter by PW 9. Later the deceased was found dead. In pursuance of
A1s confession, knives were recovered from the house of A-3 apart from seizing the Bajaj
scooter from the house of A-1 and A-3. Pursuant to the confession of A-2, shirt and gold
chain were recovered. There was also evidence that the accused had purchased the two knives
used for the offence. The trial Court found the evidence of PW-9 to be cogent and credible
and applying the principles of last seen found A-1 and A-2 guilty. The High Court acquitted
the accused but the Supreme Court restored the judgment of the Trial Court as there was
additional evidence besides the evidence of last seen together.

In Shanmughan v. State of Kerala18 the victim Raji was sleeping on the fateful day in the bed
room with her husband- the appellant. There was evidence of mal-treatment of the deceased
by the appellant. Nobody was present in the bed room where the appellant and the deceased
were sleeping as husband and wife. The victim admittedly screamed at about 2 a.m. That
attracted the inmates of the house to rush to the bed room to find the victim dead as a result of
administering of poison. This was not in dispute. The victim died of cyanide poison which is
a highly corrosive poison. The Court opined that without any force these injuries could not be
there in a case of suicidal poison. The injuries were fresh injuries and cannot be sustained by
fall on a hard substance. When the attention of the accused - appellant was specifically drawn
by the trial court under S. 313 of Cr.PC to the injuries on the deceased, he did not give any
answer. Therefore, taking all these facts and also the concurrent findings of the two courts,
the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere in the appeal. The appeal was accordingly
dismissed.
17 Harjit Singh Bedi, and J.M. Panchal, Supreme Court of India on 4 August,
2009http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1326224/
18 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1071507 on 4 August, 2008,http://www.lawyerservices.in/RavindraReddy-Versus-Shaik-Masthan-and-Others-2008-08-04

In Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal19, there were eye-witnesses who had seen the
scuffling between the deceased and the accused on demand of money and the strangulation of
the deceased by the accused persons and also the loading of the mutilated body parts of the
deceased contained in gunny bags into Maruti Van. The body of the deceased was recovered
in pieces in presence of the witnesses, have been fully established. The gap between the time
when the accused persons were last seen with the deceased and the discovery of his mutilated
body was quite small and the possible inference would be that the accused are responsible for
commission of the murder of the deceased. Once the last seen theory comes into play, the
onus was on the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased after they were
together seen alive. The accused persons have failed to render any reasonable/plausible
explanation in this regard and were therefore held liable.

In Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab20the accused Jagsir Singh took the deceased Jagjit Singh
@ Jagga, 10 year old boy, to accompany him for plucking flowers from the field. The boy
accompanied him and did not return home. He was last seen with the accused persons; the
accused had made extra-judicial confessions; the dead body of the deceased was recovered
from the field of the father of the accused; the weapon used in the crime was also recovered
on the basis of the confession; the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, the weapon used,
spade, was found stained with human blood; and the post mortem report clearly stated that
the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the seized weapon.. the
accused could not give any explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
except choosing the mode of denial. Thus, the Court convicted the accused basing on last
seen principle besides other corroborating evidence.

19 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/133213887/ decided by the Supreme Court of India on 19 January,

2012 Bench: Asok Kumar Ganguly, T.S. Thakur
20 2012 SCCL.COM 306(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 507 of
2007,http://indiankanoon.org/doc/32039060/

In Kulvinder Singh & anr v. State of Haryana 21 as both the appellants had been seen
immediately before the occurrence at the place of occurrence and the deceased had come
there shortly thereafter, the Apex Court observed that the accused had an opportunity to kill
the deceased Amardeep. After the occurrence, they were seen running together from the place
of occurrence. Such a conduct, if examined, with another circumstance i.e. the extra-judicial
confession made by the appellants before an independent witness, held completed the chain
of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the appellants-accused.

In the recent Arvindkumar Anupalal Poddar v. State of Maharashtra22 case, the deceased and
the accused were last seen together on 06.12.2001. Later, body of the deceased was recovered
at the instance of the appellant. The recovery of knife from the place of occurrence, the
frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused, the theory of the deceased having
run away from the matrimonial home not properly explained by the appellant apart from the
fact that no steps were taken by him to trace his wife, the weapon used, namely, the knife
containing blood stains, that the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased, the
death was homicidal and that the injuries could have been caused with the weapon marked in
the case , that the appellant wanted to flee from the town itself and that the clothes seized
from the appellant were found containing human blood- established the guilt of the appellant.
The Apex Court quoted Prithipal Singh & ors v. State of Punjab 23 [an illegal detention and
death case] where it has been held that a fact which is especially in the knowledge of any
person then the burden of proving that fact is upon him and that it is impossible for the
prosecution to prove certain facts particularly within the knowledge of the accused. The
Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of the accused.

21 http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/jagroop-singh-vs-state-of-punjab.html, case decided by

Supreme Court on July 20, 2012 in Criminal Appeal No. 67 of
2008,http://indiankanoon.org/doc/118148233/
22 Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. Supreme Court Of India Decided On 11 April,
2011 Http://Indiankanoon.Org/Doc/1797027/
23 2012 (1) SCC 10.