,I l- ' hirri or her. (PT\892) 144 ee the case of DAGGASH VS. BULAMA (2004) , ·, . 14 NWL' d. i a <en un er cross 1 exa 1nat1on, under cross exami\nation the learned d f ask d PW2 a d she answered thu!s:, /1 e ence counse, _', ThJ evidenc of PW2 was very l oherent and not sh I =1 . . 1 : .) i put it to you that it was \Emma that killed Pavor -and not the Q. Defend nt. \ · · ~~ I A. ! , It was n t Emma but the Defendant. I Q. I put it t A. He was he one that killed F~vor [at this time she burst into crying you that it was not lthe Defendant that stabbed Favor. I \ again]. . . , The above ev, ence strengthened the credibility of the evidence of the PW2.\ . . The i vidence efore the_ Cour~ po+ ts to the irresistible conclusion that the plerson la t seen a!1ve with tr,e deceasep is the De:e~dant. The doctrine of la t-seen tied the D fendant to · the comm1ss1on of the 1 offen ~e and i is left for the De~endant to proffer evidence in the contr~ry. It is t, ite that "where a rson was the last person to be seen in the~com pan/ I. of the deceased, h has the duty to give an explanation relating to ho, the latter met . his or her death .. .. see IGABELE STATE . [2006] 6 NWL' [PT. 975)100, TAJUDEEN ILIYASU V. THE STATE LER Pf : [2015] SC/241~T013. \ \The last seen d?ctrine is rebuttable \presumption which postulat~s that \where person '+1ith whom the dec~ased was last seen cannot give an \explanation as ;\:o th_e death of the deceased, th~ court is !ust_ified to draw the neces~ary inference that uch a person 1s responsible for the 1 \death of the deceased. See JU V THE STATE [2010] 2 MJSC 152, 186-187 I \ per J.S.C. Nwez~. I SUIT NO. 0/49c/Z016: THE ~TATE VS CHIBUIKE DURU Judgment delivered on 19/04/2018 ' 1