Three Constables, Two Claims Each
At 02:40 a truck driver reports that two men stopped him at a highway checkpost, held a knife to him and took ₹18,000 from his wallet. Three constables - A, B and C - were on the 22:00–06:00 shift. The checkpost has three posts: Post 1 at the barrier, Post 2 at the rear gate opening on the service road, and Post 3 in the wireless room. The relief book confirms that at 02:40 exactly one of the three men was manning each post, and that no relief had been sent. Questioned separately, each man made two claims. The investigating officer has independently verified that, for each man, exactly one of his two claims is true and the other false:
- A: 'I was at Post 1. B was at Post 3.'
- B: 'I was at Post 3. C was at Post 2.'
- C: 'B was at Post 2. I was at Post 1.'
The rear gate was found unbolted, and the assailants are believed to have entered and escaped through it. The three men have 6, 9 and 14 years of service respectively and no previous punishment.
1. Establish who was at which post. Show the elimination, not just the answer.
Read the worked answer
Assume first that A was at Post 1. Then A's first claim is true, so his second must be false: B was not at Post 3. With A at 1 and B not at 3, B must be at Post 2 and C at Post 3.
Now test B's statement under that arrangement: 'I was at Post 3' is false (he is at 2), and 'C was at Post 2' is also false (C is at 3). That is two false claims, which contradicts the verified premise. So the assumption fails: A was not at Post 1.
Therefore A's first claim is false and his second is true: B was at Post 3.
Now take C: his first claim, 'B was at Post 2', is false because B is at 3. So his second claim must be true: C was at Post 1.
The only post left is Post 2, so A was at Post 2 - the rear gate.
Verification:
- A: 'Post 1' false, 'B at Post 3' true → one true, one false ✓
- B: 'Post 3' true, 'C at Post 2' false → ✓
- C: 'B at Post 2' false, 'Post 1' true → ✓
Answer: C at Post 1 (barrier), A at Post 2 (rear gate), B at Post 3 (wireless room).
2. A was at the rear gate. Does it follow that A let the assailants in? State precisely what the deduction does and does not prove.
Read the worked answer
No - the deduction proves placement, not participation.
What is established is that A was the man on the post through which the offenders are believed to have passed. That is opportunity, and it is a legitimate reason to look at A closely. It is not proof of anything further. The unbolted gate is equally consistent with:
- a gate that was never bolted at the start of the shift (a supervision failure, not complicity);
- A being overpowered, threatened or drawn away and not reporting it out of fear of punishment;
- A having gone to the rear for a legitimate reason - checking a parked vehicle, answering a call of nature - with the gate already open;
- a completely different entry and exit route, with the gate merely found open afterwards.
There is also a structural caveat the IO must record: the whole answer depends on the premise that each man told exactly one truth and one lie. If that premise came from an informal impression rather than from verified material, the conclusion collapses. The case diary must show how the premise was established.
What must be corroborated before anyone is named: A's statement under Section 161 CrPC taken without confrontation; the wireless log for 02:30–02:50; whether A or anyone made a call or set off an alert; the truck driver's description of the offenders' clothing and route; fingerprints and tool marks on the bolt; any CCTV on the service road; and whether the barrier log records the truck's entry time. Only if these converge on A does the matter move from 'he was there' to 'he was involved'.
3. Set out the procedural and departmental steps the IO should take, and the handling errors the IO must avoid.
Read the worked answer
Evidence and procedure:
- Record the basis of the premise in the case diary - who verified that each man lied once, and how. Without this, the deduction is worthless in court.
- Seize the relief book and wireless log under Section 91 CrPC with a proper seizure memo; photograph the rear gate and bolt before anything is touched.
- Take statements separately under Section 161 CrPC, in the men's own words, and do not let the three confer or 'align' their versions; a joint version has no evidentiary value and destroys all three.
- Register and investigate the robbery as the primary offence - the dacoity/robbery case is against the assailants, and it must not be allowed to become a case against a constable by default.
Departmental side: if the finding is negligence (gate unbolted, post abandoned), it is a departmental matter - a regular departmental enquiry with a charge memo, not a criminal case. If material indicates collusion, a separate criminal case is warranted and the two proceedings must be kept on separate records so that the departmental statements do not contaminate the criminal investigation. Report to the SP either way.
Avoid: custodial confrontation of the three against each other; any threat of dismissal used to extract a confession (inadmissible, and it will be the defence's best exhibit); arresting anyone under Section 41 CrPC merely to look responsive; and briefing the press with a name before the corroboration is complete.