The Statement That Says "Near the Door"
At the tourist police post in Lakeside, Pokhara, a 34-year-old Indian national reports that his bag was taken from a restaurant terrace between 19:00 and 19:40 the previous evening. It held his passport, about INR 18,000 and a camera. He speaks Hindi and limited English. Dictated to a constable, his statement reads: "I was sitting near the door and my bag was on the chair. I went to the washroom for two minutes. When I came back, one man in white shirt was going out fast. My bag was not there. The manager told me he did not see anybody." Restaurant staff say he sat outside and was on a phone call for about fifteen minutes; the terrace has no CCTV, and the "door" he means is the kitchen service door, not the street entrance. He has a flight from Kathmandu in four days and asks for "a certificate for the embassy today". No interpreter is on duty and the constable's written English is basic.
1. Identify the ambiguities and inconsistencies that must be resolved before the statement is finalised, and frame the questions you would put to him.
Read the worked answer
Ambiguities to resolve
- "Near the door" - which door? This decides the sightline and whether the thief passed him or approached from behind. Ask: "Which door? Show me on the terrace."
- "On the chair" - beside him, or on the chair opposite? Was the strap over his shoulder at any point?
- "Two minutes" - versus staff saying fifteen minutes on a call outside. Ask him to reconstruct from his phone's call log, which is checkable and removes the guesswork.
- "One man in white shirt" - build a description in a fixed order: sex, approximate age, height relative to the waiter, build, hair, shirt, trousers, shoes, bag carried, direction taken. "White shirt" alone eliminates almost nobody.
- "A man was going out fast" - did he see the bag in the man's hand, or only the man? These are different statements and the difference decides whether this is an eyewitness identification or an inference.
- "The manager told me he did not see anybody" - hearsay; the manager's own statement must be recorded separately.
Method. Ask open questions first, then the closed follow-ups; have him walk the terrace and mark positions; read back the Nepali/English version through a Hindi-speaking officer or staff member if one can be found, and have him confirm and sign. Never write a detail he has not said.
2. What should the post register and give him, and what is the realistic sequence for his passport and his flight in four days?
Read the worked answer
Register the complaint as a theft from the restaurant, in the prescribed form, with the items listed and valued, the times given as a range, and the complainant's signature or thumb impression. Record that no force was used and that the terrace has no CCTV - those are facts for the file, not reasons to refuse the report.
Give him a copy or at minimum the report number, date, post name and the name and rank of the receiving officer, bearing the office stamp. That document is what the embassy will treat as the police report. Do not draft a separate "certificate" certifying facts the post cannot verify.
Sequence for the four days:
- Today: report registered, copy issued, item list with the passport number and issue details.
- Embassy of India, Kathmandu: application for an emergency certificate, supported by the police report, photographs and any copy of the passport on his phone.
- Department of Immigration: exit formalities once the emergency certificate is issued; the post can explain this but should not promise a timeline it does not control.
- Keep the investigating officer's contact and tell him to check back before travelling.
Do not promise recovery, and do not tell him the case has been "filed and closed" - an unresolved report is normal and is what the embassy expects.
3. Rewrite the substance of his statement in about five sentences of clear English, preserving only what he can attest, and explain your drafting choices.
Read the worked answer
Draft: "On the evening of 14 April I was sitting on the terrace of the restaurant at Lakeside. My bag, containing my passport, about INR 18,000 and a camera, was on the chair beside me. I left the terrace to use the washroom; when I returned, the bag was gone and I saw a man in a white shirt walking quickly towards the kitchen door. I did not see him take the bag. I did not know how long I was away, and I can show the call log on my phone."
Why it is written this way
- First person, past tense, one event per sentence - the register a court and an embassy both read without strain.
- "Beside me" replaces the ambiguous "near the door"; the door appears only where it matters, as the direction the man was moving.
- "I did not see him take the bag" is the crucial sentence. Without it the statement implies an identification of the thief that the witness cannot support, and the defence will use that gap to discredit the whole account.
- "I did not know how long I was away" avoids inserting "two minutes" as established fact; the call log is offered as checkable corroboration.
- Nothing is added about the manager's remark, which belongs in the manager's own statement.
- The officer should record that the statement was read back, interpreted if necessary, and confirmed, and note in the file that the written English is a summary of what the complainant said in Hindi.