Kerala High Court Refuses To Suspend Ex-MLA Antony Raju's Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (17 march) dismissed the plea preferred by former MLA Antony Raju seeking to set aside the order of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram that rejected his application to suspend his conviction in the Evidence Tampering case. Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgment. Antony Raju was arrayed as the the second accused in an evidence...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (17 march) dismissed the plea preferred by former MLA Antony Raju seeking to set aside the order of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram that rejected his application to suspend his conviction in the Evidence Tampering case.
Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgment.
Antony Raju was arrayed as the the second accused in an evidence tampering case involving an Australian national, Andrew Salvatore.
The prosecution case was that Raju who was the defence counsel for Salvatore, entered into a conspiracy with the 1st accused, the Clerk in charge of the property section of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram with the intention of tampering with the evidence in an NDPS case so as to secure the acquittal of Salvatore.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate - I Nedumangad pronounced Raju guilty of tampering with the material evidence. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of 6 months for the offence under Section 120B; 3 years with Rs.10,000/- fine for the offence under Section 201 r/w Section 34 for 3 months; 3 years for the offence under Section 193 r/w Section 34; 2 years for the offence under Section 465 r/w Section 34. The sentences were to run concurrently.
Subsequently, he moved the Sessions Court challenging the conviction. Though the Sessions Court suspended the execution of the sentence, it dismissed his application to suspend the conviction. Aggrieved, he has come before the High Court challenging the dismissal.
According to Raju, the precedents in law point that in cases where the ramification of keeping the conviction alive during pendency of appeal is irreconcilable, the appellate court can suspend conviction. The present case, where a candidate is barred from contesting in an election because of a conviction that is challenged in appeal, constitutes an irreversible injury that cannot be monetarily compensated.
The Court examined the requirements of suspension of conviction. Referring to KC Sareen v CBI, Chandigarh [(2001) 6 SCC 584], the Court noted that the power to suspend conviction should be exercised in very exceptional cases.
The Court went on to examine to two major aspects espoused by the petitioner to ascertain whether the judgment suffers from illegality. The petitioner had argued that the prosecution has no case, as to who, when and how the evidence was tampered with and second argument was that it was not the petitioner who received the M.O.1 underwear but the uncle of the accused.
The Court rejected these arguments noting that the evidence prima facie established that the material object was handed over to Raju without any Court order and remained with hum for over three months before being returned. The Court noted that in such circumstances, the trial court was justified in invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, placing the burden on the accused to explain facts within his special knowledge.
With regard to the question of electoral disqualification, the Court distinguished Navjot Singh Sidhu v State of Punjab and Anr. [AIR 2007 SC 1003], where the conviction was stayed, noting that the facts there involved unique moral and factual consideration which are absent in the present case.
The Court further noted that the disqualification under the Representation of the People Act is deliberate legislative mandate aimed at maintaining the integrity of public life and the mere inability to contest elections does not, by itself, constitute an exceptional circumstances warranting suspension.
"it is neither in the interest of law, nor inpublic interest to stay/suspend a conviction merely for the reason that the accused is an M.L.A or an M.P and that his future chances of contesting election is in jeopardy. Such jeopardy is nothing but a statutory legal consequence, emanating from the judgment of conviction, duly entered into by a competent Court, in accord with the due process of law." Court observed
The Court further noted that in the absence of a serious infirmity or a fundamental flaw with the judgment, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused, the judgment of conviction is not liable to be stayed/ suspended.
The Court thus refused to suspend the judgment of conviction.
Case Title: Antony Raju v. State of Kerala
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 1627/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
Counsel for Petitioner: P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Aaron Zacharias Benny, M Revikrishnan, P.M Rafiq, Ajeesh K. Sasi, Sruthy N. Bhat, Sruthy K.K, K. Aravind Menon, Sona Maria Biju
Counsel for Respodnents: P. Narayanan (Sp. GP), Sajju. S (Sr. GP), V.R Manoranjan (PP)