You Be The Detective - 1

The criminal(s) must have used a car, yet from statement $(3),$ we know that Krishna does not drive; therefore, if Krishna is guilty, then he must have had an accomplice, that is $\text{If Krishna is guilty, then so is Satvik and/or Sharky.}$ But from statement $(1),$ we know that only Krishna, Satvik, and Sharky could possibly have been involved. Therefore we can say that $\text{If Krishna is innocent, then Satvik and/or Sharky must be guilty.}$ In both cases, we have that either Satvik or Sharky is guilty. Consider that Sharky is innocent; then Satvik must be guilty. Consider that Sharky is guilty; then from statement $(2),$ we know that Satvik is guilty as well. In every case, we have that $\boxed{\text{Satvik is guilty.}}$

Python 2.7

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

# JUSTICE MACHINE v1.0
from itertools import product
def possible(satvik,krishna,sharky):
    # Somebody had to do it
    if True not in (satvik,krishna,sharky):
        return False
    # Sharky can't be without Satvik
    if sharky and not satvik:
        return False
    # Krishna can't drive
    if krishna and not (satvik or sharky):
        return False
    return True
satvik_guilty = True
krishna_guilty = True
sharky_guilty = True
for satvik,krishna,sharky in product((True,False),repeat=3):
    if possible(satvik,krishna,sharky):
        if not satvik:
            satvik_guilty = False
        if not krishna:
            krishna_guilty = False
        if not sharky:
            sharky_guilty = False
if satvik_guilty:
    print "SATVIK: GUILTY"
if krishna_guilty:
    print "KRISHNA: GUILTY"
if sharky_guilty:
    print "SHARKY: GUILTY"
if True not in (satvik_guilty,krishna_guilty,sharky_guilty):
    print "You can't prove anything!"

We can easily eliminate Krishna as the loot was driven away in a car and the statements tells us that Krishna cant drive. The remaining criminals are Sharky and Satvik. Another one of the statements tell us that Sharky doesn't do a job without the others, and we are trying to find the ONE person who is guilty. This leaves us with SATVIK AS GUILTY.

First of all, we know that only one of the three criminals committed the crime. We also know that the criminal must have used a car. Since Krishna cannot drive, he cannot be the criminal. Looking at statement two, we can reword this as "if Satvik is not there, then Sharky will not commit a crime." Looking at the contrapositive of this, if sharky did commit the crime, then Satvik must have been there. However, only one criminal was involved, so it cannot possibly be Sharky. By logical deduction, Satvik must be the criminal.

(1) None other than Satvik, Krishna and Sharky was involved in the robbery.
Implications ==> At least one of the three is involved and guilty of the robbery.

(2) Sharky never does a job without using Satvik (and possibly others) as accomplices.
Implications ==> If Sharky would somehow be found guilty, then Satvik must also be guilty by association (Sharky is usually a good girl but she's prone to succumb to Satvik's corruption OR Sharky doesn't have the complete skill sets to conduct a large scale larceny solo and Satvik had to have been her hired help).

(3) Krishna doesn't know how to drive.
Implications ==> If Krishna would somehow be found guilty, then he would need at least one other accomplice to drive him away from the robbed store (he can't move the looted stuffs away and escape the crime scene just by himself).

Possible looter(s) :
1) Krishna, Sharky & Satvik from Clue 1, 2 & 3, or
2) Krishna & Satvik from Clue 1 & 3, or
3) Sharky & Satvik from Clue 1 & 2, or
4) Satvik from Clue 1.

Satvik is found in all of the possibilities, so he must have been looting somehow or another, whether alone or with partner(s).

Assume Satvik is guilty. Then there are the following possibilities-

1. Only Sharky is guilty.

2. Only Krishna is guilty.

3. Both Sharky and Krishna are guilty.

1 and 3 cannot be true since if Sharky is guilty then so must Satvik be.

2 cannot be true since Krishna can't drive.

Thus, since none of the 3 are possible, Satvik must be guilty.