Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court on Tuesday admitted the appeals of two death-row convicts in the sensational Saurabh Rajput murder case, known as the blue drum murder case, and fixed Nov 30 for the final hearing.A division bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Padam Narain Mishra passed the order on criminal appeals filed by Muskan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla, challenging the death sentence awarded to them by a Meerut sessions court on Oct 14.Saurabh, a merchant navy officer, was murdered and his body was dismembered and concealed in a blue drum filled with cement and concrete. The case triggered widespread outrage. Following an investigation, police arrested Saurabh’s wife, Muskan, and her lover, Sahil. After trial, the Meerut district and sessions court sentenced both convicts to death for murder and causing the disappearance of evidence. Through their counsels, they filed criminal appeals seeking the quashing of the conviction order dated Sept 30 and the subsequent death sentence awarded to them.In their criminal appeals, both convicts urged the HC to admit their appeals and set aside the trial court’s orders. The trial court had awarded them the death penalty along with a fine of Rs 50,000 each.In their appeals, the convicts described the trial court’s verdict as illegal and arbitrary and sought its complete reversal. They urged the high court to set aside the conviction and death sentence and acquit them of all charges under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.The appeals contend that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to the appellants, the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, yet the trial court arrived at its conclusion on the basis of speculation and conjecture while overlooking established legal principles.The convicts also pointed to alleged contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding the purchase of the weapon, cement and drum. They argued that neither CCTV footage nor valid purchase receipts were produced to substantiate these transactions.Other grounds raised in the appeals include the alleged absence of signatures of independent witnesses on recovery memos, violations of videography procedures, and the absence of mandatory certificates required for electronic evidence.
About The Author
