|
A new twist has emerged in the sensational Saurabh Rajput murder case in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Muskan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla, who were awarded the death penalty in the murder case, which became viral as the 'blue drum case' because of the involvement of the drum as one of the critical pieces of evidence,have challenged the verdict of the Meerut district court before the Allahabad High Court.
The two convicts have filed a joint appeal through their advocates, seeking the quashing of their convictions and the death sentence. The matter is likely to come up for hearing before a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court next week. The District and Sessions Court in Meerut had convicted both accused on September 30, 2026. Subsequently, on October 14, 2026, the court awarded them the death penalty, describing the murder as a case falling under the rarest of rare category. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 each. Both were also sentenced in connection with the destruction of evidence. They have now challenged the conviction order and the death sentence before the High Court. The case pertains to Meerut's Brahmpuri area. According to the allegations, after Saurabh Rajput was murdered, his body was placed inside a blue plastic drum to dispose of it. Cement and concrete were filled into the drum to conceal the body. After the case came to light, it attracted widespread attention across Uttar Pradesh. Following an investigation, police arrested Muskan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla. The trial was subsequently conducted before a court in Meerut. The trial court convicted both under Section 103(1), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for murder, and Section 238(a) for destruction of evidence. In their appeal before the High Court, the two have sought the quashing of their convictions under these provisions and acquittal of all charges. In the appeal, the convicts have argued that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. According to the appeal, the case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, but the trial court delivered its conviction verdict without properly evaluating the evidence and applicable legal principles. The appeal also claims that there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses relating to the purchase of the weapon, cement and drum. It further argues that CCTV footage and valid receipts relating to these purchases were not produced. The appeal also raises technical grounds, including the absence of signatures of independent witnesses on documents related to recoveries, alleged irregularities in the videography process and the non-availability of certificates required for electronic evidence. Based on these grounds, the convicts have sought the setting aside of the trial court's verdict. However, these are arguments advanced by the appellants and will be considered during the High Court proceedings. The appeal filed before the High Court names senior advocate Sushil Shukla and advocates Nidhi Trivedi, Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel and Sandeep Kumar Dubey. The appellants have urged the court to set aside the conviction order passed on September 30 and the death sentence awarded on October 14. (ANI)
|
