A special court in Ludhiana has delivered a stern verdict, sentencing a 45-year-old woman from Bihar to a decade behind bars for attempting to smuggle a substantial quantity of narcotics through the city's railway junction. The court dismissed her allegations of being framed by the police, bringing a five-year legal battle to a close.
From Railway Platform to Prison Cell
The case originates from March 16, 2019, when officers of the Government Railway Police (GRP) intercepted Radhika, a resident of Motihari district in Bihar, near the Ludhiana Junction railway station. Upon search, the police recovered 6 kilograms of cannabis resin (charas) from her possession. Crucially, she had no legal permit or license for the substance. Following a detailed investigation, the GRP filed a chargesheet, setting the stage for a protracted trial.
Presiding over the Special Court, Judge Jaspinder Singh found Radhika guilty under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court ordered 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The judgment specified that failure to pay the fine would result in an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment.
Defense Claims of False Implication Dismissed
During the trial, the defense counsel mounted a vigorous challenge to the prosecution's case. They argued that Radhika had been falsely implicated and that the drugs were planted by the police. The defense claimed she was illegally detained two days before her official arrest date.
A central argument focused on the absence of independent public witnesses during the recovery of the contraband. The defense contended that relying solely on the testimonies of "official witnesses"—the police officers involved—was a fatal flaw in the prosecution's case. They pointed to alleged inconsistencies in the officers' statements as proof of fabrication.
Court's Reasoning on Witness Testimony
In the judgment, Judge Singh directly addressed the issue of witness participation. He acknowledged the common difficulty in securing civilian witnesses in narcotics cases, noting that the investigating officer, ASI Jeewan Singh, had tried but failed to involve the public.
"Now-a-days, there is a tendency that no independent person wants to be a witness to any crime, as it will result in enmity," the court observed. "Especially when drug peddlers are involved, respectables avoid joining the investigation."
The court ruled that the joining of independent witnesses is a "rule of caution," not an absolute legal necessity. It held that the case could stand on police testimony alone, provided it was corroborative and consistent on material points.
Regarding minor discrepancies highlighted by the defense, the judge stated that "parrot-like" versions could not be expected after several years. "Some discrepancies are bound to occur with the passage of time and human memory being feeble," the court stated, ultimately finding the official testimonies reliable and sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's tough stance on drug trafficking and its acceptance of police testimony in the face of growing public reluctance to act as witnesses in such sensitive cases.
