Antony Raju Awaits Crucial Verdict in 35-Year-Old Evidence Tampering Case
The verdict in the three-and-a-half-decade-long evidence tampering case, involving former minister and MLA Antony Raju, will be delivered today. The Nedumangad Judicial First Class Magistrate Court is set to pronounce the judgment.
The verdict comes one year after the Supreme Court, in November 2024, dismissed the Kerala High Court order that had quashed criminal proceedings against Antony Raju. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s decision to consider the police chargesheet and directed the long-standing trial to be completed within a year. In compliance with this order, Raju appeared before the trial court on December 20, 2024, paving the way for the final judgment.
The case originated in 1990 when Australian citizen Andrew Salvator Servelli was arrested at Thiruvananthapuram Airport for attempting to smuggle 61.5 grams of contraband hidden in his underwear.
Raju, then a young lawyer at the beginning of his political career, appeared as Servelli’s counsel. The trial court found Servelli guilty and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. However, in a dramatic turn, the Kerala High Court acquitted Servelli on appeal after it was found that the underwear presented as evidence did not fit him.
This raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s case. Servelli subsequently returned to Australia. Years later, following information received from the Australian National Central Bureau, the investigating officer approached the High Court seeking an inquiry into the alleged destruction of evidence.
This led to the registration of a criminal case against Raju and a court clerk in 1994. After a 12-year investigation, the Assistant Police Commissioner filed a chargesheet in the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Thiruvananthapuram in 2006. Raju was charged with criminal conspiracy, fraud, and destruction of evidence.
Raju challenged the proceedings, arguing that the disputed underwear was in the custody of the trial court at the relevant time, and only the court could initiate action under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC. He contended that the police had no authority to investigate or file a chargesheet in such a case, rendering the proceedings legally unsustainable. While the High Court accepted this argument, the Supreme Court disagreed. For Raju, the verdict in this case could have significant legal and political repercussions, marking the culmination of a case that has followed him for most of his public life.