Difficult to prove charges against Antony Raju in underwear evidence tampering case: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday observed that it might be difficult to prove criminal charges against former Kerala Minister Antony Raju in the underwear evidence tampering case [Antony Raju v. State of Kerala].
The High Court made the observation while hearing Raju's plea to suspend his conviction by the trial court.
Raju is the leader of the Janadhipathya Kerala Congress party, which is part of the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) coalition in Kerala.
Raju was convicted on January 3, 2026, by the Nedumangadu Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I in the evidence tampering case which has a history spanning over three decades.
His appeal against the conviction is pending before a sessions court. While the sessions court suspended his jail sentence, it declined to suspend his conviction which effectively keeps Raju disqualified from being a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA)
While considering Raju's appeal against the sessions court's refusal to suspend his conviction, High Court Justice C Jayachandran today noted that at the time of the evidence tampering, Raju was a junior lawyer. The person on whose behalf the tampering was allegedly done was a client of his senior lawyer.
Justice Jayachandran remarked that in such circumstances, it would be difficult to establish the criminal charges against Raju who was merely assisting the senior lawyer.
The judge also questioned whether Raju's senior was aware of the alleged evidence tampering at the time.
The case against Raju stemmed from another case from 1990 when an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore Cervelli, was arrested at the Thiruvananthapuram airport for allegedly smuggling 61.5 grams of charas concealed in his underwear.
Cervelli was initially convicted by a trial court. However, on appeal, the High Court of Kerala noted that the underwear produced as material evidence was smaller than the size recorded at the time of seizure. Taking note of this discrepancy, the Court acquitted Cervelli.
Subsequent information received from the Australian National Central Bureau indicated that the underwear produced as evidence in the Cervelli case may have been altered while it was in court custody.
A criminal case was registered in 1994 against Raju, who was then a practising lawyer and had represented Cervelli. A case was also lodged against a court clerk, KJ Jose and charge sheet was filed in 2006.
The proceedings were later revived following orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court, and the trial resumed.
In January this year, the trial court found Raju guilty under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 193 (fabricating false evidence), 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
In his plea before the High Court, Raju argued that the sessions court was wrong in holding that no irreparable harm would be caused if his conviction was not stayed.
Raju submitted that the refusal to suspend his conviction could directly affect his political future.
He argued that although suspension of conviction is to be exercised sparingly, courts have recognised that such power may be invoked where failure to do so would result in irreversible injustice.
Raju also questioned how the trial court assessed the evidence, highlighting what it described as inconsistencies in witness testimony.
The prosecution vehemently opposed the petition, contending that suspension of Raju's conviction would set a bad precedent emboldening legislators who commit crimes.
The State pointed out that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions, suspension of conviction is to be granted only when there are exceptional circumstances.
A desire to contest an election cannot be treated as an exceptional circumstance warranting suspension of conviction, the State argued.
The Court today heard all parties at length and ultimately reserved its verdict in the matter.