Prayagraj: Convicted in the infamous ‘blue drum murder case’, Muskan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla have approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the death sentence awarded to them by the Meerut sessions court.A division bench of the high court is likely to hear the matter next week.On Oct 14, the Meerut district and sessions court had awarded the death sentence to both the convicts in the high-profile case. They have filed criminal appeals seeking the quashing of the conviction order dated Sept 30 and the death sentence awarded to them on Oct 14.Saurabh Rajput, 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 Rastogi and her lover Sahil Shukla.During the trial, the Meerut court convicted them of murder and of destroying evidence. On Oct 14, the court awarded them the death penalty along with a fine of Rs 50,000 each. They were also sentenced for the offence related to concealing evidence.In their appeal, the convicts have described the trial court’s verdict as illegal and arbitrary and sought its reversal. They have 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 appeal contends that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to the appellants, the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, but the trial court arrived at a conclusion on the basis of speculation and conjecture while overlooking established legal principles.The appellants have also alleged contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding the purchase of the weapon, cement and drum. They have argued that neither CCTV footage nor valid purchase receipts were produced to substantiate these transactions.Other grounds raised in the appeal include the absence of signatures of independent witnesses on recovery memos, violations of videography procedures and the absence of mandatory certificates required for electronic evidence.
