Doctrine of Last Seen

The doctrine of "last seen" means that the law presumes that the person last seen with the deceased bears the full responsibility for his death. It is the duty of the accused person to give an explanation as to how the deceased met his death. See: Emeka Vs The State (2001) 14 NWLR (Pt.734) 666; Nwaeze Vs The State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt.428) 1; Igho Vs The State (1978) 3 SC 87; Igabele vs The State (2006) 6 NWLR (Pt.975) 100.

The Last Seen Doctrine indicates that any Accused charged with murder would be required to offer some explanation as to how the deceased met his death. It has no statutory foundation, and the Doctrine is a development of case law – see Archibong v. State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 249 SC, and Haruna v. A-G., Federation (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt 1306) 419 SC, where this Court, per Adekeye, JSC, explained the law as follows-
The doctrine of last seen means that the law presumes that the person last seen with a deceased bears full responsibility for his death. Thus, where an Accused person was the last person to be seen in the company of the deceased and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to no other conclusion, there is no room for acquittal.

The prosecution/respondent at the trial therefore relied on circumstantial evidence especially the Doctrine of last seen. This doctrine simply means that the law always presumes that the person last seen with the deceased is presumed to be responsible for his death, provided the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to no other person or persons but him. As it has been confirmed by the available evidence that the deceased was with the appellant up to the time of his death then the doctrine of last seen obviously counts or applies against him. Moreso, there is a confessional statement voluntarily made by the appellant which supported the presumption of his guilt by the application of doctrine of last seen, as well as the evidence of his own brother PW1 all of which corroborated and supported his responsibility in causing the death of their deceased father.
See Moses Jua v State (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 21; Archibong v State (2006) 14 NWLR (Pt.1000) 249.