Muskan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla, the two individuals convicted in the high-profile Meerut murder case, have formally filed a joint appeal with the Allahabad High Court. The petition seeks to overturn the capital punishment awarded to them by a district court, with the defence requesting that their convictions be set aside entirely. The legal challenge comes only days after the local trial court sentenced both individuals to death and levied a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their roles in the killing of former merchant navy officer Saurabh Rajput.
The underlying case concerns the murder of Saurabh Rajput, which occurred in March 2025 within the jurisdiction of the Brahmpuri police station in Meerut. Following the incident, the victim's body was discovered hidden inside a large blue plastic drum, which had been filled with a mixture of cement and concrete in an apparent attempt by the perpetrators to conceal the body and prevent decomposition. The grisly discovery sparked significant public outcry and led to a rapid police investigation that resulted in the arrest of the two convicts.
In their appeal filed before the Allahabad High Court, the defence team has argued that the initial verdict was both illegal and arbitrary. A central pillar of their challenge is the contention that the prosecution’s case was built entirely upon circumstantial evidence, lacking any direct eyewitness testimony. The appellants submitted that the trial court reached its conclusion based on speculation rather than established legal principles, failing to meet the threshold required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The petition further details what the appellants describe as glaring contradictions in the statements provided by witnesses during the trial. Specifically, the defence highlighted inconsistencies regarding the alleged purchase of the crime weapon, the procurement of the plastic drum used to hide the body, and the acquisition of the concrete mixture. According to the filing, the police failed to provide necessary corroborative evidence, such as store receipts or CCTV footage, which would have verified these transactions and strengthened the state's case.
Beyond the arguments regarding substantive evidence, the appeal highlights significant technical and procedural lapses that allegedly occurred during the police investigation. The defence has pointed to the absence of mandatory signatures from independent witnesses on official recovery memos, a lapse they argue invalidates the integrity of the evidence collection. Additionally, they claimed that investigators failed to adhere to established videography protocols during search operations, compromising the transparency of the process.
A critical point raised in the appeal involves the handling of digital and electronic records. The defence maintains that the prosecution failed to produce the statutory certificates required under evidence law to authenticate these records. By failing to validate the digital submissions properly, the defence argues that the evidence is legally unsustainable. The appellants, who are currently incarcerated at the Chaudhary Charan Singh Jail in Meerut, are now waiting for the Allahabad High Court to schedule a formal hearing before a division bench, which is expected to take place next week.
While the prosecution has consistently maintained that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment given the brutal nature of the crime and the deliberate efforts to destroy evidence, the High Court’s intervention will now hinge on whether the reported procedural failures and gaps in the evidence warrant a revision of the lower court’s judgment. As legal proceedings continue, the case remains a subject of significant scrutiny regarding the standards of investigation and the reliance on circumstantial evidence in capital cases.
Comments