Disqualified MLA Antony Raju Files Appeal Against Evidence Tampering Conviction
Disqualified MLA Antony Raju has filed an appeal challenging his conviction and sentence in a 1990 evidence tampering case. He asserts that the trial court overlooked key reports suggesting involvement of other individuals.
Court Sets Hearing Date for January 24
The Thiruvananthapuram district and sessions court scheduled a hearing on January 24 for the appeal petition. This move comes after Raju's recent conviction led to his automatic disqualification as a Member of the Legislative Assembly.
Key Arguments in Raju's Appeal Petition
In his petition, Raju made several critical arguments:
- Overlooked Interpol Report: Raju contended that the magistrate failed to consider an Interpol report. This report indicated that family members of the accused allegedly bribed court clerks. It also suggested they tampered with or substituted the underwear that served as crucial evidence in the case.
- Ignored High Court Documents: He argued that the trial ignored a high court judgment and a high court vigilance inquiry report. These documents pointed to the involvement of multiple persons in the alleged wrongdoing.
- Significant Delay in Proceedings: Raju underscored that the crime allegedly occurred in 1990, yet the FIR was registered only in 1994. The conviction came in 2026, resulting in a 36-year delay. He alleged this delay prejudiced his defence.
Background of the Case and Conviction
On January 3, the Nedumangad judicial first class magistrate court-I sentenced Raju to three years' imprisonment for evidence tampering. The case involved an Australian national.
Raju and co-accused K S Jose were convicted on charges including:
- Causing disappearance of evidence
- Publishing false evidence
The conviction directly led to Raju's automatic disqualification as an MLA. This legal outcome has sparked significant attention in political and legal circles.
Raju's appeal now focuses on procedural oversights and delays. He aims to overturn the verdict by highlighting these alleged flaws in the judicial process.
