Delhi Police seeks death penalty for Tahir Hussain, four others in Ankit Sharma murder case

Delhi Police on Monday urged a Delhi court to award the death penalty to former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and four others convicted in the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Delhi riots, describing the crime as "heinous", "cold-blooded" and "diabolical".

The submissions were made before Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh, who was hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence for the five convicts.

Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey argued that Sharma was abducted, brutally assaulted and murdered, with the attackers continuing to inflict injuries even after his death.


Also Read: CJP threatens to 'sit on protest again'; warns govt over alleged police action against protestors

"Ankit Sharma was abducted and relentlessly assaulted before he was killed. A total of 51 wounds were found on his body, 18 of these 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 kept on the assault," he said.

Seeking the maximum punishment, Pandey submitted that the brutality of the offence warranted the death sentence.

"This was a cold-blooded murder. These people turned into butchers during the crime. There was not even a single cloth except underwear on the body of Sharma. These people should be kept behind bars, (and) given the maximum death sentence," he said.

He further argued that the murder could not be viewed in isolation from the larger context of the 2020 Delhi riots.

"The manner of this killing is not to be seen in isolation, but with the 53 people killed in these riots. So, the context also became relevant, the context in which the riots took place," he added.

Pandey also told the court that Sharma had not provoked anyone and that the convicts had deliberately participated in the killing.

"My humble submission is that the commission of this offence, the conduct of the convicts was such that there should be no leniency given 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," he said.

Appearing for Hussain, advocates Rajiv Mohan and Tara Narula opposed the prosecution's plea, arguing that no specific role had been attributed to their client and pointing out that six of the 11 accused were acquitted.

"Every convicted person should not be given the death sentence. Aggravating circumstances should be considered first and then the mitigating circumstances. Of conviction, out of the 11 accused, six have been acquitted," Mohan said.

He argued that capital punishment is reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases and contended that the trial court's judgment referred to the presence of a mob but did not specify the individual role of the convicts.

"The punishment of death cannot be determined merely on the basis of the injuries sustained. His (Hussain) conduct was good in jail during the custody. The court had recorded the statements of 91 witnesses, after which only five out of the 11 accused were convicted by the court," he said.

Hussain's counsel also maintained that the prosecution had failed to establish a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC.

"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," he said.

Advocate Tara Narula submitted that Hussain is the sole breadwinner of his family and has a wife and three children.

"All three (children) were minors when he surrendered. Though his application was rejected in the Rouse Avenue court due to non-jurisdiction of the court, it should be considered that he came out to surrender. His guidance must be required as his daughter grows up," she said.

On July 13, the court convicted Hussain and four others for the murder of Sharma, whose body was recovered from a drain after he was attacked by a mob during the 2020 Delhi riots.

In its verdict, the court held that Hussain was part of a heavily armed unlawful assembly that had gathered with animosity against Hindus to engage in rioting, arson and looting, and that Sharma was killed in a "savage and relentless assault".

The court also held that the prosecution had established that members of the unlawful assembly knew that pursuing their common object could result in someone's death.

Hussain was convicted under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 153A (promoting enmity), 188 (disobedience to an order promulgated by a public servant), read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly).

(With PTI inputs)