MLA Antony Raju convicted in 36-yr-old underwear evidence tampering case
text_fields
Thiruvananthapuram: In a dramatic development, Kerala’s Left Front legislator and former Transport Minister Antony Raju was convicted on Saturday by a local court in suburban Thiruvananthapuram in the notorious "underwear evidence tampering" case, bringing to a close a legal saga that has stretched over more than three and a half decades.
The charges proven against Raju carry sentences ranging from ten years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment. The prosecution has requested that sentencing be conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate's court, and if accepted, Raju and the other accused will be taken into custody.
Though the verdict comes 19 years after the charge sheet was filed, the original incident occurred 36 years ago. The first accused in the case is the court clerk, Jose, while Raju is the second accused. The ruling follows nearly a year after the Supreme Court, in November 2024, set aside a Kerala High Court order that had quashed criminal proceedings against Raju.
The case dates back to 1990, when Australian national Andrew Salvatore Cervelli was arrested at Thiruvananthapuram airport for allegedly attempting to smuggle 61.5 grams of contraband hidden in his underwear. Raju, then a young lawyer at the beginning of his political career, had represented Cervelli as his counsel.
Cervelli was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 10 years in prison. However, the Kerala High Court later acquitted him on appeal, citing that the underwear produced as evidence was too small to fit him, raising doubts about the prosecution’s case. Cervelli subsequently returned to Australia.
Years later, following information from the Australian National Central Bureau, the investigating officer approached the High Court seeking a probe into the alleged tampering of the evidence. This led to the registration of a criminal case in 1994 against Raju and the court clerk. After a 12-year investigation, the Assistant Commissioner of Police filed a charge sheet in 2006 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, accusing Raju of criminal conspiracy, cheating, dishonestly inducing the delivery of property, and causing the disappearance of evidence.
Raju challenged the proceedings, arguing that the disputed underwear had been in the custody of the trial court at the time and that only the court could have initiated action under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC. He contended that the police lacked authority to investigate or file a charge sheet, rendering the proceedings legally untenable.
While the High Court initially accepted this argument, the Supreme Court disagreed, reviving the prosecution and paving the way for the conviction, which is expected to have significant consequences for Raju.
With IANS inputs