Your reputation is very much affected by the person whom you are seen with. That’s about the social aspects. But did you know that not only reputation, being seen with someone can drag you into a criminal case. Sounds crazy, right? But that’s what reflects in the legal theory of last seen. It discusses the proximity of a person last seen with the person when he/she was alive, and when the said person was found dead. So if you are seen roaming around with a person, and the next hour he/she was found dead after going home, all the fingers will point towards you, if there is no cogent evidence to prove that someone else killed him/her. So here, we have compiled Supreme Court judgments on Last Seen Theory to explain how Courts process the evidence and decide the conviction or innocence of a person in similar cases.
Last Seen Together Judgments by Supreme Court
Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha (2025)
The Supreme Court sought to analyse whether the evidence of last seen together was sufficient to convict the appellant. This was because in this Supreme Court case on last seen theory, except for evidence of “last seen together”, there was no incriminating material against the appellant. In this case, the Supreme Court exaggerated the need for conclusiveness in the nature of circumstantial evidence for the person to be convicted only on the basis of evidence of “last seen together”.
Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2023)
The Supreme Court judgment here sought to emphasize on the importance of positive evidence sufficient to justify the application of last seen theory. The Court expressed that “‘Last seen’ as a link in the chain of circumstantial evidence, would suggest existence of oral testimony of at least one witness to establish that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused.” Due to absence of positive evidence, the Court extended benefit of doubt to the appellants leading to their acquittal.
Rambraksh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016)
This is another landmark last seen together judgment by Supreme Court. In this case, the Apex Court reiterated the trite law restricting conviction merely on the ground that the accused was last seen together with the deceased. The Court observed that “a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together.” While reiterating about when last seen theory comes into play, signifying the importance of gap, the Court further added that “To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused.”
Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2014) DOWNLOADED
In the instant last seen theory Supreme Court judgment, the Apex Court illuminated on the aspect of what is sufficient for conviction. The Court elaborated that “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. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant.”
Hatti Singh v. State of Haryana (2007)
The Court clarified that if the evidence of last seen in itself was not proved, it is not of much significance. The last seen theory may provide for a link in the chain of circumstances. The Court further emphasized that “Unless the time gap between the deceased having been last seen in the company of the accused persons and the murder is proximate, it is difficult to prove the guilt of the accused only on that basis.”
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006)
The Supreme Court judgment on last seen theory hereby pertains to the relationship of a husband and wife. Here, the Court explained that the probability of a person’s wife being murdered by an outsider could be ruled out in ordinary course. The Court emphasized that the failure of the husband to offer an explanation in such a situation would itself speculate a circumstance which may be taken into consideration.
Ramreddy Rajeshkhanna Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006)
While referring to the landmark judgment of last seen evidence in Satish (supra), the Court in this case focused upon the importance of the gap between last seen together and deceased found dead. However, the Court was of the view that “Even in such a case courts should look for some corroboration.”
State of UP v. Satish (2005)
This one is considered as the landmark supreme court judgment on last seen theory which focuses upon the time gap between the two events. The Court held that “In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.”
Bodhraj v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2002)
This Supreme Court judgment on last seen theory marks the threshold for positive evidence and time gap between last seen and death of deceased. The words here have been used in the 2005 judgment in Satish (supra). The Apex Court expressed that “The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last 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 would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.”
