Meerut Court Sentences Couple To Death Over Saurabh Rajput Murder, Widely Reported As “Blue Drum Murder” Oct 14, 2026 Muskan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla were sentenced to death by Meerut court on 14 Oct, 2026 for the murder of Saurabh Rajput. The couple was convicted on 30 September by a Meerut court after a trial of prosecution witnesses and forensic evidence. The accused was convicted after the accused demanded that they are awarded death on the charge under the category “rare of rare”. Http://indianexpress.com/article/india/a-grey-area-sot-too-a-meerut-court-sentences-couple-to-death-over-saurabh-rajput-murder-4982316/
The judgment also raise fresh focus on a significant issue in Indian criminal law – when should a court sentence an accused to death instead of life imprisonment? For Indian law, capital punishment is a rare sentence. As a case of murder raising serious allegations, a court can’t count on the outrage or the severity of the crime to justify the death sentence.
What Is the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine?
This “rarest of rare” doctrine was laid down by Constitution Bench in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). The Court, while recognising the constitutional validity of the death penalty, opined that death sentence could be awarded only in “rarest of rare” cases where the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
In these circumstances, the court will have to decide if a case is so special that life imprisonment is not a suitable alternative, having regard to all the relevant factors. It is not the law that life imprisonment cannot be imposed in shocking cases which receive a lot of publicity.
The doctrine necessitates an evaluation of the nature of the offense and of the offender. The court pronouncing sentence is obliged to consider with all fairness and care the nature of the offense and of the offender to the end that a just sentence may be pronounced.
What Did the Supreme Court Say in Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh?
Need Help With Your PhD or LLM Thesis?
Explore our thesis and dissertation writing support services for PhD and LLM students. Get subject-specific academic assistance for your research project.
Explore Our Services →In Bachan Singh, the Supreme Court reasoned that death sentence should be awarded only in rarest of rare cases, in which all the other options are undoubtedly exhausted. A consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offence must be made along with the considerations relating to the offender.
The principles were also elaborated upon in the case of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983). The Court held that various factors which could be relevant while considering the seriousness of a crime are nature of crime, motive, degree of brutality and the class of the victim, various factors which are merely tentatively considered.
The Court also emphasized the necessity of weighing nonstatutory factors favoring a death sentence (aggravating circumstances) with those favoring a life sentence (mitigating circumstances). Such nonstatutory factors were required to be considered and weighed fully by the sentencing court before it could determine whether death was an appropriate punishment.
Subsequent rulings, such as that of Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), have reaffirmed the principles of proportionality, individualised sentencing, and of having the option of rehabilitation. Those cases reaffirm that, even in the application of death penalties, one cannot simply label a crime as “especially heinous”.
Why Must Courts Consider Rehabilitation and Mitigating Circumstances?
It is a fact that may have taken into account in favour of a less severe punishment. These factors, depending on the case, include the offender’s age, role in the crime, character and background, potential to reform, attitude of offenders, and other relevant circumstances.
The prosecution will be able to use aggravating factors, including planning, the mode of commission of the offence, and the attempt to cover up evidence. The defence needs an effective opportunity to state factors related to the penalty.
The Supreme Court has on numerous occasions made clear that the sentence must have regard to whether the offender is capable of rehabilitation. This is not to be treated as a “rhetorical nod”. A trial court contemplating the death sentence must look at material relevant to such sentencing.
As a result, the gravity of the crime is relevant but not dispositive. The dispositive question, when all aggravating and mitigating factors have been considered, is whether the case passes the exigent constitutional threshold for capital punishment.
And what does the doctrine imply for the Meerut blue drum murder case?
In the Meerut case, the prosecution is said to have pressed for the maximum punishment based on the murder plan, disposal of the dead body and the evidence given during the trial. The court has awarded the death sentence to Muskan Rastogi and Sahil Shukla after finding them guilty of murder of Saurabh Rajput and other offences. The trial record and sentences were carried by the Times of India on October 14, 2026.
The question of whether the case is “rarest of rare” is always a legal one and revolves around the application of the prevailing legal principles to the facts of the case which have been proved before the court. It is thus the reason for the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court which is material.
The doctrine requires courts not to let public anger replace judicial decision making. The decision of the court to impose the death sentence must articulate what more severe punishment than life imprisonment can be imposed and how it would be justified according to the relevant law.
Is the Death Sentence Final?
No. The death sentence handed down by a Court of Session needs to be sent to the High Court for confirmation under Section 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The death sentence can’t be implemented without the confirmation of the High Court.
The Court considers the death sentence in the manner provided by the statute and the Court may review the evidence, conviction and sentence. The convicted persons also has the right to a legal recourse available including the appeals and further proceedings before the Supreme Court, where it exists.
Hence, the rule of ‘rarest of rare case’ is inevitable even after the passing of the judgment by the Trial Court. The legal process progresses from the conviction to the decision of death sentence by passing through the second phase- capital punishment.
