Original in-game verdict

Background 1. The State of Karnataka alleges that Farhan Ansari took Nitin Hegde’s drill from a shared storage area on Saturday without permission and asks for a finding of guilt for theft. Farhan accepts that he borrowed the drill but says Nitin permitted this particular use. He asks that the drill be returned to Nitin once located. 2. The record contains Nitin’s signed complaint account and a WhatsApp conversation displayed on Farhan’s phone. The parties have had an opportunity to address the conflict between them. The State says it has no further evidence to resolve who sent the reply in the conversation. The record does not establish whether the drill was returned, where it is now, or whether it remains with Farhan. Issues for determination 3. The central issue is whether the State proved that Farhan took the drill without permission. Under Rule 41, each required element in a criminal matter must be supported by reliable evidence. Rules 1 and 8 likewise require proof, not accusation alone. The State bears the burden of proving the alleged unauthorized taking; Farhan does not have to prove his innocence. 4. A separate question is whether the record supports Farhan’s requested order for return of the drill. The request is considered on the evidence actually presented, without assuming the drill’s present location or possession. Submissions of the parties 5. The State relies on Nitin’s signed complaint, which says no loan was agreed on this occasion while acknowledging earlier loans. The State initially asked for a finding of guilt if the evidence proved the taking was unauthorized. In its final submission, however, the State acknowledged that the Friday exchange appears to grant permission for this exact Saturday use, that it has no further evidence identifying the sender, and that it cannot responsibly ask the court to treat the complaint alone as proof of unauthorized taking. 6. Farhan says he borrowed the drill with permission and relies on the displayed WhatsApp exchange. His final submission emphasizes that the exchange supports permission and asks for the drill to be returned to Nitin once located. The State’s concern that the sender is not independently confirmed is a fair limitation on the message’s weight. The defense’s assertion that the message came from Nitin is not, by itself, proof of identity. Evidence and findings 7. The signed complaint is relevant evidence of Nitin’s account. It directly supports the State’s allegation that he did not agree to this loan. But it is an attributed account, not testimony in this record, and it acknowledges a history of lending tools to Farhan. Its denial of permission is contradicted by the displayed conversation. The complaint therefore supports the State’s position but does not settle the issue. 8. The conversation is presented as a WhatsApp exchange displayed in the conversation rather than as an isolated cropped image. It shows Farhan asking to use the drill for his Saturday job and a reply from a contact identified as Nitin: “Yes, take it from the storage shelf. Bring it back Sunday.” The wording is specific to the disputed use and strongly supports permission. The record does not independently verify the sender’s identity, so the court does not treat the contact name as conclusive proof that Nitin sent the reply. 9. The State had a fair opportunity to address the exchange. Its submissions acknowledge both the message’s substantial support for permission and the absence of further evidence resolving attribution. The State’s final position is not a concession that the sender’s identity is proven; it is an acknowledgment that the full record does not establish unauthorized taking. No further obtainable proof is identified, and an adjournment is not allowed. 10. The record does not establish that the drill was actually returned or that it is currently in Farhan’s possession. Farhan’s request for return once located is not proof of either fact. The court makes no finding about the drill’s present location. Reasons 11. The State must prove the essential allegation that the taking was unauthorized. The complaint provides direct support for that allegation, but its weight must be assessed against the specific, contemporaneous wording in the displayed exchange. Under Rule 2, written records can be more persuasive than vague accounts, though reliability and attribution still matter. Here, the exchange’s context and precise terms make it significant; the unresolved sender identity prevents treating it as conclusive. 12. The evidence is in conflict, but the burden does not require Farhan to establish with certainty that Nitin sent the reply. The question is whether the State has proved lack of permission on the whole record. The complaint alone does not overcome the exchange’s direct wording, particularly when the State itself has no evidence resolving the conflict and acknowledges the message substantially weakens its case. Under Rules 8 and 41, uncertainty on this essential point cannot be converted into proof of guilt. The issue of permission is therefore not proven against Farhan. 13. This conclusion does not find as an established fact that Nitin sent the WhatsApp reply, nor does it find that the drill was returned. It means only that the State has not proved the alleged unauthorized taking on the available record. The State’s request for a finding of guilt consequently fails. 14. Farhan’s request for return of the drill also cannot be granted on this record. The evidence does not establish where the drill is or who currently possesses it, and no evidence supports a specific order requiring a person to return it. This does not alter the criminal finding; it is a limit on the separate requested relief. Final order 15. The State has not proved that Farhan Ansari took Nitin Hegde’s drill without permission. The theft allegation is dismissed, and Farhan is not found guilty on this record. 16. Farhan’s request for an order returning the drill is denied because its present location and possession are not established. No payment, compensation, or other monetary award is ordered. This judgment decides only the allegation and relief presented in this record.