6. EVIDENCE - DOCTRINE OF LAST SEEN: When the doctrine of last seen can be invoked
"The undisputed evidence on record is that the Appellant who is a neighbour to PW6's father (PW2) and
enrolled PW6 in the school where he teaches, sometimes takes her to and back from school. On the
fateful day, 11th June, 2013 the Victim was seen by most staff of the school including PW7, the Head
Teacher of the school, playing on the Appellant's motor-cycle and when told to go home, she said she
was waiting for her uncle, the Appellant. The Appellant admitted he dropped her at home as confirmed
by his wife, DW2 and PW6's mother, PW4. She was hale and hearty when last seen 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 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 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".
Though the above cases involve charge of murder or culpable homicide, the law applies with equal force
in a situation such as the one at hand where the Victim was last seen with the Appellant in healthy
condition and the next thing was that she was seen with blood stained vagina and inflammation. The
burden was shifted to the Appellant with whom she was last seen healthy, to offer a plausible