LAWYER SIBLING LOGO (1)
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • News
  • Updates
  • Constitution
    • Constitutional Laws
  • Laws
    • Civil Law
    • Criminal Law
    • Family Law
    • Real Estate Law
    • Business Law
    • Cyber & IT Law
    • Employee Law
    • Finance Law
    • International Law
  • Special Act
    • Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act)
    • Consumer Protection Act
    • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act (NDPS)
    • The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO)
  • Bare Act

Delhi Riots: Tahir Hussain challenges conviction and life sentence in Ankit Sharma murder case

26/08/2026BlogNo Comments

Former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain has approached the Delhi High Court challenging his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma, who was killed during the 2020 Delhi riots.

A Division Bench of the High Court is expected to take up Hussain’s criminal appeal next week. Assailing the judgment of the trial court, Hussain has alleged that the investigation was vitiated by bias from its inception and was conducted with the objective of implicating him in response to the public outrage surrounding Sharma’s death.

In his appeal, Hussain has questioned the manner in which the FIR and subsequent investigation were conducted. He has alleged that the FIR was ante-dated and ante-timed and contended that no meaningful investigation was undertaken until March 6, 2020, when he was arrested in connection with another case. The appeal further alleges that certain witnesses were introduced to strengthen the prosecution case, while the accounts of purported eyewitnesses were manipulated.

The case arises from communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020 amid protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. An FIR concerning Sharma’s death was registered on February 26, 2020, on a complaint lodged by his father, Ravinder Kumar.

According to the prosecution case, violence had erupted in the vicinity of Chand Bagh Pulia, where Hussain and his associates were alleged to have participated in acts of stone-pelting, the use of petrol bombs and firing from premises associated with Hussain. Sharma went missing on February 25, 2020, and his body was subsequently recovered from a nearby drain. His father had expressed suspicion regarding the involvement of Hussain and others.

Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh of the Karkardooma Courts convicted Hussain and four co-accused—Nazir, Asim, Javed and Anas—on July 13. They were found guilty of offences including murder, rioting, promoting enmity between groups, unlawful assembly and kidnapping or abduction under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

On July 31, the trial court sentenced all five convicts to life imprisonment. The prosecution had sought the imposition of the death penalty.

In his appeal before the High Court, Hussain has argued that the trial court’s findings were legally unsustainable, particularly in view of his acquittal on allegations relating to criminal conspiracy, abetment and exhortation for public mischief. Despite those acquittals, he contends that the trial court proceeded to hold him liable with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC on the premise that he was a member of an unlawful assembly.

The appeal also disputes the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution case. Hussain has contended that although the FIR was founded on Ravinder Kumar’s complaint, Kumar subsequently disowned the allegations attributed to him and did not maintain accusations against Hussain during the proceedings.

Hussain has further challenged the prosecution’s reliance on five witnesses to establish his alleged presence as part of the unlawful assembly. He has specifically questioned the testimony of two brothers, describing them as “planted” chance witnesses and pointing to alleged inconsistencies in their accounts concerning their presence at the scene and the circumstances in which they purportedly witnessed the incident.

The Delhi High Court will now examine whether the conviction is sustainable on the evidence relied upon by the prosecution and whether the trial court’s invocation of the principles governing vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC was legally justified.

The post Delhi Riots: Tahir Hussain challenges conviction and life sentence in Ankit Sharma murder case appeared first on India Legal.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • Delhi High Court says Karni Sena President free to move around, protest must be lawful
  • Delhi Riots: Tahir Hussain challenges conviction and life sentence in Ankit Sharma murder case
  • Patiala House Court declines Interim protection against Delhi race club’s eviction from Lutyens’ Delhi premises
  • OBC creamy layer ruling: Centre moves Supreme Court seeking exemption for CSE 2025-26
  • Delhi High Court gives six weeks to slum residents near PM’s residence to vacate, orders rehabilitation monitoring

Recent Comments

  1. Phone Tracking In India - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  2. Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  3. The Evolution of Indian Penal Code 1860: Key Provisions and Relevance Today - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA

Follow us for more

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
Instagram
DisclaimerPrivacy PolicyTerms and Conditions
All Rights Reserved © 2023
  • Login
  • Sign Up
Forgot Password?
Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.