A division bench of the Allahabad High Court is scheduled to hear the appeal filed by Muskan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla against the death sentence imposed by a Meerut district court in the blue drum murder case. Senior advocate Sushil Shukla filed the appeal on behalf of both convicts on Friday, challenging the judgment delivered by District Judge Arvind Kumar Mishra on October 14 following a 13-month trial spanning 126 hearings.
Grounds of Appeal: Conjecture and Procedural Lapses
The appellants have characterised the trial court's verdict as illegal and arbitrary, urging the high court to acquit them of all charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Their petition contends that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. They assert that the conviction rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, yet the trial court arrived at its conclusion through speculation and conjecture while overlooking settled legal principles governing such evidence.
Specific allegations include material contradictions in witness statements regarding the procurement of the weapon, cement, and the blue plastic drum used to conceal the body. The appeal highlights the absence of CCTV footage or valid purchase receipts to corroborate these transactions. Furthermore, the convicts have pointed to the alleged lack of independent witnesses' signatures on recovery documents, violations of mandated videography procedures during search and seizure, and the non-production of mandatory certificates for electronic evidence as required under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Case Background
The offence occurred on March 3, 2025, within the Brahmpuri police station area of Meerut. Saurabh Rajput, a former merchant navy officer and husband of Muskan Rastogi, was murdered. The accused subsequently concealed his body inside a blue plastic drum filled with cement and concrete in an attempt to dispose of it. The incident triggered widespread public outrage following its discovery. Police arrested both individuals after investigation, leading to the trial that concluded with the capital punishment order.
What specific procedural violations have the convicts alleged in their appeal?
The appeal alleges the absence of independent witnesses' signatures on recovery documents, violations of mandatory videography procedures during search and seizure operations, and the failure to produce requisite certificates for electronic evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Aspect | Trial Court Finding | Appellants' Contention |
|---|---|---|
Nature of Evidence | Conviction based on circumstantial evidence | Prosecution failed to prove chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt; court relied on conjecture |
Recovery of Articles | Weapon, cement, drum recovered per prosecution | Contradictions in witness statements; no CCTV or valid receipts produced |
Procedural Compliance | Procedures followed per prosecution | Missing independent witness signatures on recovery memos; videography norms violated; electronic evidence certificates absent |
Sentence | Death penalty awarded October 14 | Verdict illegal and arbitrary; sought acquittal under BNS provisions |
The high court's decision to admit the appeal for hearing marks the commencement of the appellate review process. The bench will evaluate whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and whether the procedural safeguards mandated by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam were strictly observed during the investigation and trial. The outcome will determine if the capital sentence withstands scrutiny or if the conviction itself is set aside.