Three Statements at the Sector 19 Shop
At 21:10 on a January night a shopkeeper in the Sector 19 market reports that the cash box behind his counter has been emptied. The shutter was down and locked from inside, so the sub-inspector rules out an outsider. Three employees were on the premises: Pawan, who works the counter; Qasim, who handles the store; and Rita, the cashier. Each gives one statement, recorded verbatim. Pawan: 'Qasim took the money.' Qasim: 'Pawan is lying.' Rita: 'I did not take the money.' The SI is satisfied that exactly one of the three statements is true and that exactly one of the three took the money. Two side facts are on file: Rita was warned last year over a ₹4,000 cash shortage, and the entry register shows she left the counter for 12 minutes at 20:50. There is no CCTV inside the shop. The SI must decide whom to name in the FIR and wants the reasoning written into the case diary.
1. Work through all three possible culprits and identify who took the money. Show why the other two possibilities fail.
Read the worked answer
Test each possible culprit against the rule that exactly one statement is true.
- Pawan took the money. Pawan's claim that Qasim took it is false. Qasim's claim that Pawan is lying is therefore true. Rita's claim that she did not take it is also true. Two true statements - rejected.
- Qasim took the money. Pawan's statement is true, Qasim's is false, Rita's is true. Two true statements - rejected.
- Rita took the money. Pawan is false, Qasim is true, Rita is false. Exactly one true - accepted.
So the statements, taken as reliable and exhaustive, point only to Rita. Note what the reasoning does not do: it does not prove guilt, and it depends entirely on the SI's finding that exactly one statement is true. If that premise is wrong, the conclusion collapses, so the finding itself must be recorded with reasons.
2. A colleague says: 'Rita was warned before over a cash shortage, so the logic is a formality - just name her.' Evaluate this reasoning.
Read the worked answer
The colleague is jumping from character to proof. A previous warning over a ₹4,000 shortage is past conduct; it makes Rita a person of interest and cannot substitute for material showing she took this cash box. If the case rests on the warning alone it is vulnerable: any defence will say the investigation began with a conclusion and the statements were fitted to it. Kept in its proper place, the warning is only a reason to look carefully.
The 20:50 register entry is better evidence because it is contemporaneous, but 12 minutes away from the counter is still consistent with innocence. The correct sequence is: record the truth-table reasoning as the basis for suspicion, extract the register entry, then look for material that can actually be tested - cash recovery, fingerprints on the box, who held the shutter key, what Pawan and Qasim said to each other, and street-side CCTV from the market lane.
3. What should the SI secure first, and what must appear in the case diary before the first supervisory check?
Read the worked answer
Priorities are the things that cannot be recovered later. Overnight, before the shop reopens: secure the cash box for fingerprints, seize the entry register (do not merely photocopy it), and record the exact time each statement was taken and by whom.
Then take Pawan's and Qasim's statements in full, including whether they discussed the money between themselves - collusion would damage the 'exactly one true' premise on which everything rests. Trace the 12-minute absence in the register and on the market CCTV.
What must not be missing from the diary: the two side facts, with a plain note that neither is proof; the truth-table reasoning that led to Rita; each seized item with its seizure memo; and the grounds on which any person is or is not arrested. Naming a person in the FIR is not a finding of guilt, and the diary should say so.