Ludhiana: It was a “swift” end for a father and son whose black sedan proved to be a mobile drug den. After a long-running legal battle, the duo found that blood isn’t thicker than the law, as a special court handed them 10-year sentences for their heroin-ous crimes. The sentences were awared for the possession of 1.7 kg heroin. The case, which dates back to July 2021, highlights the judicial stance on drug trafficking and the weight of official police testimony in such proceedings.Case Summary: The Arrest and RecoveryThe conviction stems from an operation led by the STF Mohali near the BRS Nagar area. Acting on a secret tip-off, police intercepted a black Swift car near Mata Gujri Park. Satish Kumar and his son, Suraj Kumar, have been named as convicts in this case. The contraband police had found on them included 1.7 kg of heroin, an electronic weighing scale, 30 locked pouches, and two lighters.Details of the location of recovery suggest that a black polythene bag wasfound near the car’s handbrake amd tje seized items were in there.The Court’s JudgmentJudge Dr. Rajneesh delivered the sentence after dismissing the defense’s arguments of false implication. The duo has been sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and told to pay ₹1 Lakh fine each. There’s an additional year of rigorous imprisonment if the fine is not paid.Police testimony was ruled as “consistent, cogent, and coherent.” The court maintained that official witnesses are assumed to act honestly unless proven otherwise.The court rejected the defense’s plea that the absence of independent witnesses weakened the case, stating police testimony is as valid as a private individual’s. In the special court’s observation: “No animus of the police officials with them has either been alleged or proved on record. Had any such thing happened, the accused would have filed a complaint before the higher authorities.”The court noted that during cross-examination, the defense failed to “shatter the prosecution story.” Because the evidence provided by the officers was corroborative and lacked infirmities, the court found no legal necessity for independent corroboration to secure a conviction.
