in school and soon as Appellant dropped her at home and she went into the toilet to ease herself, her mother, PW4 heard her crying, and upon being examined, noticed that her private part had been tempered with. Between the time she was last seen in school hale and hearty and the time she was dropped by the Appellant at home and her mother heard her crying and her vagina blood stained, was such a short time that appropriately fits the applicability of the doctrine of last seen a doctrine that has gained global application and acceptability. The doctrine of last seen as explained in HARUNA VS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE FEDERATION (2012) 9 21 NWLR (PT. 1306) 419 (SC) per Adekeye JSC, 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 company of the deceased and circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and leads to no other conclusion, there is no room for acquittal. This doctrine applies when the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small or short that the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible, so said ARIWOOLA JSC at Pages 51 - 55 paragraphs F D in MADU VS THE STATE (2012) LPELR 7867 (SC). In such circumstances the onus shifts squarely to the accused person to offer an explanation, a plausible explanation, showing that he was not the person responsible. In NWAEZE VS THE STATE (Supra). Adio JSC had this to say: the position then is that if Mr. A was last seen with or in company of Mr. B and the next thing that happened was the discovery of the corpse of Mr. A then, irresistible inference is that 22 Mr. A was killed by Mr. B the onus will be on Mr. B to offer explanation for the purpose of showing that he was not the one that killed Mr. A.