A Marathi Statement with an Ambiguous Pronoun
A shopkeeper's statement is recorded in Marathi by a police constable in a threat-and-extortion case. The relevant portion reads: 'मी दुकान बंद करत होतो. तेवढ्यात रमेश आणि सुरेश आले. त्याने मला म्हणाला, पैसे दिले नाहीत तर दुकानात आग लावीन. मी घाबरलो आणि मागे सरकलो. त्यांनी मला सोडले नाही. नंतर पोलीस आले आणि त्यांनी दोघांना ताब्यात घेतले.' The investigating officer must use this statement to frame the FIR and prepare an English translation for the chargesheet. The accused's lawyer claims the statement clearly names Ramesh as the person who threatened the shopkeeper. The IO says it is obvious from the context that Suresh threatened him. The witness is available for clarification. The statement was recorded in the witness's own words, but the constable did not read it back to him, and the witness signed only the last page.
1. Identify the referential ambiguity in the Marathi statement and explain why it matters for framing the FIR.
Read the worked answer
The ambiguity is in 'त्याने मला म्हणाला' (he said to me). The singular masculine pronoun follows two male names, Ramesh and Suresh, and Marathi grammar does not fix its antecedent. It could mean Ramesh or Suresh. The later 'त्यांनी मला सोडले नाही' is plural and refers to both, but it does not identify who uttered the threat. This matters because the FIR must state the accused's overt act. If the FIR names Ramesh as the threatener but the evidence shows Suresh spoke, the prosecution may have to explain the inconsistency. If both are named with common intention under s.34 IPC, the prosecution must prove a pre-arranged plan or common object. The IO should not silently choose a name. He should record a clarification under s.161 CrPC (s.180 BNSS) in the witness's own words, read it back, and obtain signatures on each page.
2. Translate the statement into English for the chargesheet, marking the ambiguity rather than resolving it silently.
Read the worked answer
English translation: 'I was closing the shop. Just then Ramesh and Suresh came. He [singular; the Marathi original does not show whether this was Ramesh or Suresh] said to me, If you do not give the money, I will set the shop on fire. I got frightened and moved back. They did not let me go. Later the police came and took both of them into custody.' The translation keeps the singular pronoun and flags the ambiguity. A chargesheet translation should not insert a name that is not in the original. 'पैसे दिले नाहीत' is 'did not give the money'; the threat is conditional. 'ताब्यात घेतले' means 'took into custody', not formally 'arrested', so the softer phrase is more accurate. If the IO later obtains a clarification, he can file a supplementary statement, but the original statement must remain on record.
3. Draft two clarification questions in Marathi and English that the IO should ask the witness to remove the ambiguity without suggesting the answer.
Read the worked answer
Marathi: (1) 'त्या वेळी तुम्हाला धमकी कोणी दिली - रमेशने, सुरेशने, की दोघांनीही?' (2) 'धमकीच्या वेळी रमेश काय करत होता आणि सुरेश काय करत होता?' English: (1) 'At that time, who threatened you - Ramesh, Suresh, or both?' (2) 'At the time of the threat, what was Ramesh doing and what was Suresh doing?' These are open questions and do not put the answer in the witness's mouth. The IO should record the answers verbatim, read them back, and have the witness sign each page. If the witness says both threatened him, the IO must still specify the overt act of each to support common intention. If the witness says only one, the other should not be named as a threatener without separate evidence.