Kerala High Court Refuses Relief to Antony Raju in Evidence Tampering Case

In Antony Raju v. State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court has refused to interfere with the conviction of former MLA Antony Raju in an evidence tampering case. The Court dismissed his plea against a Sessions Court order that had declined to quash his conviction while his appeal remains pending.

Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgement on Tuesday, upholding the position that the conviction should continue for now. The ruling came in proceedings arising from a criminal case linked to alleged manipulation of material evidence in an NDPS matter involving an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore.

The prosecution case is that Antony Raju, who had appeared as Salvatore’s defence counsel, entered into a conspiracy with a court clerk handling the property section of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The alleged object was to tamper with evidence in order to help secure Salvatore’s acquittal.

Earlier, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Nedumangad had found Raju guilty. He was convicted for multiple offences, including criminal conspiracy, causing disappearance of evidence, giving false evidence, and forgery, all read with the relevant provisions on common intention where applicable.

The trial court had imposed different prison terms for the offences, along with a fine for one of the counts. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently. After the conviction, Raju approached the Sessions Court challenging the judgement and seeking relief from the consequences of conviction.

The Sessions Court granted suspension of the sentence, which meant the jail term would not operate immediately during the appeal. But it did not go further and suspend or quash the conviction itself. That refusal became the subject of the challenge before the High Court.

Before the High Court, Raju argued that appellate courts can suspend a conviction in exceptional situations where keeping it alive causes damage that cannot later be undone. His main submission was that a continuing conviction would stop him from contesting elections, causing irreversible political injury.

This was projected as a consequence that could not be adequately repaired later, even if the appeal eventually succeeds. In essence, the plea was not only about criminal procedure, but also about the immediate public and electoral impact of a subsisting conviction.

The High Court, however, was not persuaded to grant that relief at this stage. By dismissing the plea, the Court left the conviction intact, even though the appeal against the trial court’s findings is still pending. A detailed copy of the judgement is still awaited.

The order is significant because it draws a clear line between suspension of sentence and suspension of conviction. While the former may protect liberty during appeal, the latter is treated as a more limited remedy, to be granted only in rare and compelling circumstances.