Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Ex-MLA Antony Raju's Plea Against Order Refusing To Suspend Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case

The Kerala High Court on Friday (March 6) reserved its verdict in 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 today heard detailed arguments adduced on behalf of Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu, who appeared on behalf of Raju. Advocate Sajju S., Senior Public Prosecutor, appeared on behalf of the State. Journalist M.R. Ajayan filed an impleading petition and opposed the plea. The prosecution case was that Andrew Salvatore, who is an Australian citizen, was caught with narcotics hidden in a pocket of his underwear during frisking at the Thiruvananthapuram Airport while on his way to Mumbai in April, 1990. The personal belongings including the underwear and other articles seized by the police from Salvatore which were kept in the safe custody of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram was later released by the first accused court clerk to second accused Antony Raju, who was the junior advocate to Salvatore. This underwear was returned after tampering, leading to Salvatore being acquitted since the underwear was too small.The senior counsel appearing for Raju pointed out that the petition to release one set of evidence, which also contained a pair of underwear, was filed by Salvator's uncle. Subsequent to an order of the Magistrate, the underwear, which is alleged to have been tampered, was wrongly released. As a junior lawyer, Raju was not aware of the same even though the prosecution alleged that it was clandestinely accessed. He told the Court that the wrong underwear released was returned upon the direction of the Magistrate. "Cannot say that. Party can say. Lawyer cannot say. Suppose it is received by the party, party can say but lawyer cannot say, whether he is junior or senior," the Court orally remarked."Who filed that petition? My case is that it was filed by the uncle of the accused. To release the properties. It is counter signed by my senior, not by me. I don't know the contents. I was asked to go with him and fetch it. That is the role and knowledge," the Senior Counsel added."Was your vakalath there?," Justice Jayachandran inquired."With other, many junior lawyers. Not senior engagement for me. My sign was also there like other juniors in the office," Sr. Advocate Vijayabhanu replied.Hearing the submission, the Court turned to the prosecution and quizzed:"Prosecution, do you have a case that this particular junior lawyer had got any acquaintance with the accused? Specifically? Whatever he has acted is only on behalf of the senior. And why haven't you proceeded...What is the motive for the A1 and A2 to collude? That act should stem from some motive. There is no evidence or case like that. My point is when the presumption is that if he has acted on behalf of the instruction, why you have not made the senior an accused if that is so?...There should be a special case as to why this particular junior has gone overboard to help the accused, which should stem from a motive. Either he should have a special interest based on some interest for money or else he has a personal interest on the accused...There should have been some special connection with the client as a junior, so he can do without senior knowing. When prosecution does not have a case like that...Will it amount to criminal intention? Can it be mens rea? Unless you canvass a special case."The prosecution replied that the senior is no more but the Court pointed out that he was there at the time of initiation of the criminal proceedings. Raju's counsel told that the senior was questioned as well. The Court further orally observed:"Only the physical act has been proved...No doubt someone has done the mischief. And you can even say there is nothing wrong in pinpointing A1. But then, A2 is a lawyer attached to that office. You have no case that he has a special interest in the accused. You have no case that he has received some money based on that...Essentially, these thondi numbers are all within the knowledge of the Court, not for the lawyer. Assuming in the case of a junior lawyer, he may not unless he has received special knowledge to receive it or take it...Especially when the other thing contains an underwear also. There is an underwear mentioned in the thondi item you have directed to be released. This is also along with that. Very difficult to find a guilt in the touchstone of a criminal liability."Referring to the cross-examination of the investigating officer, the senior counsel argued that the investigating officer had categorically deposed that he was not aware of who, where and when the underwear was tampered. If that be the case, Raju ought not to have been implicated, it was contended."At best, this is a case of circumstantial evidence. At best. Is the chain complete? Just because he took and returned it, can it be said that he...

Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Ex-MLA Antony Raju's Plea Against Order Refusing To Suspend Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Ex-MLA Antony Raju's Plea Against Order Refusing To Suspend Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

K. Salma Jennath

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers