2020 Delhi Riots: Police Seeks Death Penalty For Tahir Hussain, 4 Others In IB Officer Ankit Sharma Murder Case
Former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain appears before a Delhi court during sentencing proceedings in the 2020 Delhi riots murder case of IB officer Ankit Sharma
A Delhi court on Monday reserved its order on the quantum of sentence for former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain and four others convicted in the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Delhi riots. The court is scheduled to pronounce its sentencing order on July 31.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Praveen Singh of Karkardooma Court reserved the matter after hearing detailed submissions from both the prosecution and the defence on the appropriate sentence.
Seeking the maximum punishment, the Delhi Police urged the court to award the death penalty to all five convicts, arguing that the murder fell within the "rarest of rare" category due to its brutality.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Madhukar Pandey submitted that Sharma had been abducted, subjected to a brutal assault and murdered by the convicts.
"Ankit Sharma was abducted and relentlessly assaulted before he was killed. A total of 51 wounds were found on his body; 18 of those were inflicted with sharp weapons. The nature of the weapons used shows the intent and diabolical nature of the crime. They fell to the level of being animals. Even after the victim died, they continued the assault," Pandey argued.
Describing the offence as exceptionally heinous, the prosecutor contended that no leniency should be shown.
"This was a cold-blooded murder. These people turned into butchers during the crime. There was not even a single cloth except underwear on Sharma's body. These people should be kept behind bars, (and) given the death sentence," he submitted.
Pandey further urged the court to consider the killing in the broader backdrop of the 2020 Delhi riots, in which 53 people lost their lives.
"The manner of this killing is not to be seen in isolation, but with the 53 people killed in the riots. So, the context also became relevant, the context in which the riots took place," he argued.
He maintained that Sharma had not provoked anyone and that the convicts had consciously participated in the murder.
"My humble submission is that the commission of this offence, and the conduct of the convicts, was such that no leniency should be shown to the convicts. There was no provocation in this case. They deliberately got involved in a cold-blooded murder. In this case, the balance of sentencing policy should be shifted towards the death sentence," Pandey submitted.
He concluded by stating: "Those who did not show mercy to people during the riots should not be entitled to seek mercy."
Opposing the prosecution's plea, Senior Advocate Rajiv Mohan, appearing for Tahir Hussain along with Advocate Tara Narula, argued that the case did not satisfy the legal threshold for imposing capital punishment.
Mohan submitted that six out of the eleven accused had been acquitted and that the judgment did not attribute any specific role to Hussain in the murder.
"Every convicted person should not be given the death sentence. Aggravating circumstances should be considered first and then the mitigating circumstances. Out of the 11 accused, six have been acquitted," he argued.
He further contended that the number of injuries sustained by the deceased alone could not justify the death penalty.
"The punishment of death cannot be determined merely based on the injuries sustained. His conduct was good in jail during custody. The court had recorded the statements of 91 witnesses, after which only five out of the 11 accused were convicted," Mohan submitted.
The defence also argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code during the trial.
"Police themselves were unable to control the violent mob, and in such a situation, a single individual cannot be held responsible for the murder. He should be given a chance to reform," Mohan argued.
Advocate Tara Narula urged the court to consider Hussain's personal circumstances while determining the sentence.
She submitted that Hussain is the sole breadwinner of his family and has a wife and three children. "All three were minors when he surrendered... His guidance must be required as his daughter grows up," Narula argued.
After hearing both sides, the court reserved its order on the quantum of sentence and is expected to pronounce its decision on July 31.
Previous Hearings
On July 13, the court convicted Tahir Hussain and four others for the murder of IB official Ankit Sharma during the 2020 North East Delhi riots.
The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against Hussain for offences punishable under Sections 188, 153A read with 149, 147 read with 149, 148 read with 149, 365 read with 149, and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Hussain was, however, acquitted of charges under Sections 120B, 505, 109 and 114 IPC.
The remaining convicts, Nazim, Kasim and Anas, were also convicted for offences including murder, kidnapping, rioting, promoting enmity and unlawful assembly. They too were acquitted of the criminal conspiracy charge under Section 120B IPC, while Nazim was additionally acquitted of offences under the Arms Act.
According to the judgment, forensic investigators who inspected Hussain's building in Khajuri Khas on February 28, 2020, recovered stones, bricks, a catapult, petrol bombs, glass bottles stuffed with cloth, bullets and burnt articles from the terrace and surrounding area. The court observed that the building was allegedly used by rioters for stone-pelting and hurling petrol and acid bombs during the communal violence.
The judgment further recorded that eyewitnesses identified Hussain and several co-accused as participants in the violence. Witness Vikalp Kochar specifically identified Tahir Hussain and co-accused Anas as being involved in the murder of Ankit Sharma, while other witnesses identified several accused persons allegedly involved in rioting and arson at Hussain's instigation.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to a FIR registered at Dayalpur Police Station on the basis of the complaint made by Ankit Sharma’s father, Ravinder Kumar. He alleged that on February 25, 2020, his son, who was posted in the Intelligence Bureau (IB), had come back from the office and gone out, and did not return after a long time.
The complainant father came to know from local boys that his son Ankit Sharma had been “thrown” into Khajuri Khas “nala” (drain) from the masjid in Chand Bagh pulia after “he was killed.” His body was recovered from the nala. The deceased’s father, in his complaint, had raised strong suspicion that his son Ankit Sharma had been killed by Tahir Hussain and others, who had gathered in his office, and that after killing his son, his body was thrown into the nala from the masjid.
On March 24, 2023, the trial court framed charges against Hussain and ten co-accused, namely Haseen alias Mullaji alias Salman, Nazim, Kasim, Sameer Khan, Anas, Firoz, Javed, Gulfam, Shoaib Alam alias Bobby, and Muntajim alias Musa.
ASJ Pulastya Pramachala framed charges against Hussain and ten others, namely, Haseen @ Mullaji @ Salman, Nazim, Kasim, Sameer Khan, Anas, Firoz, Javed, Gulfam, Shoaib Alam @ Bobby, and Muntajim @ Musa. All the accused persons have been charged under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with a deadly weapon), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence), and 302 (murder) read with 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Hussain has also been charged under Sections 109 (abetment), 114 (abettor present when offence is committed), and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC. In its order, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala observed, “He (Hussain) instigated the mob when Ankit came forward towards this mob. The conspiracy need not be specific to kill Ankit. When the accused persons were acting in pursuance to a conspiracy and common object to kill Hindus, it covered killing of Ankit as well for the reasons that Ankit was killed because he was a Hindu.”
Violence broke out in Northeast Delhi in 2020 during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act, which followed widespread clashes between the supporters and opponents of the Act. Several incidents of stone-pelting, arson, and violent protests were reported, which had left nearly 53 dead and injured thousands.
Bench: Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Praveen Singh
Hearing Date: July 27, 2026