Ranchi NDPS Court Acquits Accused After Police Claim Seized Ganja Was Destroyed by Rats
In a startling case that has raised serious questions about evidence handling and police accountability, a special NDPS court in Ranchi has acquitted an accused after the Jharkhand Police claimed that 200 kilograms of seized ganja were eaten by rats while stored in the police malkhana.
The court expressed strong concern over what it described as grave procedural lapses, inconsistencies in official testimony, and a complete failure to preserve crucial evidence. These shortcomings, the court noted, cast serious doubt on whether the alleged seizure ever took place.
According to the prosecution, the ganja had been confiscated during an operation and kept in the police storage facility. However, when the case came up for trial, authorities informed the court that the narcotics could not be produced because they had allegedly been destroyed by rodents. The explanation failed to convince the court, which found the claim implausible given the quantity involved.
During the proceedings, the court observed contradictions in statements given by police officials, unclear documentation, and the absence of standard safeguards required under the NDPS Act. The judge noted that such lapses undermine the credibility of the prosecution and violate mandatory legal procedures meant to ensure transparency and fairness.
The court emphasized that under strict narcotics laws, the responsibility of law enforcement to secure, preserve, and properly document seized material is fundamental. Failure to do so, it ruled, cannot be brushed aside with casual explanations.
As a result, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused, leading to acquittal. The court also remarked that careless handling of evidence not only weakens individual cases but also damages public confidence in the justice system.
The case has sparked renewed debate over the condition of police malkhanas, evidence management practices, and internal accountability mechanisms. Legal experts say the verdict serves as a reminder that stringent laws demand equally stringent compliance, and shortcuts can collapse even serious prosecutions.
The judgment stands as a sharp warning to investigative agencies that procedural negligence can derail cases entirely—no matter the severity of the allegations.
