Principles of law can be difficult to comprehend. However, just like any other subject, when a student can relate with the essence of it, it becomes a piece of cake. Thus, hopefully this article will be such an aid. And that too through a scene from a movie.
The Harry Potter series by J K Rowling changed the world for most of us. The movies were a visual treat and still continue to be an inspiration for fiction.
So, remember the scene from the Chamber of Secrets? The one where Mr. Argus Filch wrongfully accuses the Trio (Harry, Ron and Hermione of course!)? Yes, where poor Mrs. Norris was allegedly murdered by Harry Potter. This scene clearly depicts one of the principles used in the Law of Evidence i.e. “The Last Seen Theory”.
The ‘Last Seen Theory’ is embedded in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhinayam, 2023 where the burden of proving a fact which is within the knowledge of the person is upon the person. Thus, when a person is last seen with a victim, the circumstantial evidence may lead to a conclusion that the former person is the perpetrator of the crime and may be required to prove his innocence or prove his ‘non’ involvement in the crime. This is usually applied when the most likely person to know about the whereabouts of the crime is the accused alone.
However, the presumption is of a weak nature. This is because the threshold while ascertaining the accused is higher and should be beyond reasonable doubt. Most probably due to the recurring circumstances where in the last person acquainted with the now corpse sheds a huge shadow of doubt, this theory came up. The Hon’ble Apex Court has provided a stark warning against the use of this theory through a catena of cases.
In Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam1, the lower Court and the High Court relied strongly on the theory. The evidence pointed the accused to be last seen with her husband, the victim just before his death and declared her guilty. However, the Apex Court overturned the verdict in 2018. Justice Navin Sinha observed in his judgement that in case of circumstantial evidence “the prosecution is required to establish the continuity in the links of the chain of circumstances, so as to lead to the only and inescapable conclusion of the accused being the assailant, inconsistent or incompatible with the possibility of any other hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. Mere invocation of the last seen theory, sans the facts and evidence in a case, will not suffice to shift the onus upon the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case. If the links in the chain of circumstances itself are not complete, and the prosecution is unable to establish a prima facie case, leaving open the possibility that the occurrence may have taken place in some other manner, the onus will not shift to the accused, and the benefit of doubt will have to be given”.
The Theory cannot be dismissed just for the sake of its weak nature. The theory helps the Investigating Officer to find suspects and clues about how the crime occurred. So, the next time you come across the above scene, remember that Argus was wrong in applying the Last Seen Theory!
DISCLAIMER: THE MOVIE SCENES ARE ONLY TAKEN AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THE THEORY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITH THE MOVIE CREATORS.
- AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 5361 ↩︎
