A Delhi court on Monday reserved its order on the quantum of sentence for former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain and four other convicts in the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots.
After hearing detailed submissions from the prosecution and the defence, Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh of the Karkardooma Courts fixed July 31 for the pronouncement of the sentencing order.
The proceedings followed the conviction of Tahir Hussain, Nazir, Asim, Javed and Anas for offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping or abduction with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 149 (offence committed by members of an unlawful assembly), 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 188 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Hussain was, however, acquitted of the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
Seeking the maximum punishment, the Delhi Police urged the court to impose the death penalty, contending that the offence fell within the “rarest of rare” category evolved under criminal jurisprudence. Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey submitted that Sharma was abducted, subjected to a brutal and sustained assault, and murdered during the communal violence.
Referring to the post-mortem report, the prosecution stated that the victim had sustained 51 injuries, including 18 caused by sharp-edged weapons, and argued that the nature of the injuries reflected exceptional brutality and a clear intention to kill. It was further submitted that the assault allegedly continued even after Sharma had succumbed to his injuries, demonstrating the diabolical nature of the crime.
The prosecution argued that the offence could not be viewed in isolation but had to be assessed in the backdrop of the large-scale communal violence that claimed 53 lives during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. It contended that Sharma had not provoked the accused and that no mitigating circumstances justified leniency. According to the prosecution, the balance of sentencing principles warranted the imposition of capital punishment.
Opposing the plea for the death sentence, counsel appearing for Hussain and the other convicts argued that capital punishment can be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases after balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The defence submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish any criminal conspiracy, noting that Hussain had already been acquitted of the charge under Section 120B IPC.
It was also argued that six of the 11 accused had been acquitted after the trial, and that the judgment did not attribute any specific overt act to Hussain beyond his alleged presence as part of the unlawful assembly.
The defence further contended that the number and nature of injuries sustained by the deceased could not, by themselves, justify the death penalty. It also relied on Hussain’s satisfactory conduct during incarceration, his surrender before the investigating agency, and his personal circumstances, including that he is the sole earning member of his family comprising his wife and three children, as mitigating factors deserving consideration during sentencing.
The defence additionally argued that the inability of the police to control the violent mob indicated that criminal liability could not be fastened upon a single individual for the acts of the entire assembly.
The case arises out of FIR No. 65 of 2020 registered at Dayalpur Police Station on the complaint of Sharma’s father, Ravinder Kumar. According to the prosecution, communal clashes had erupted in the Chand Bagh area over protests relating to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, during which incidents of rioting, arson, stone-pelting, firing and vandalism were reported.
The complainant alleged that Hussain, then an elected municipal councillor, had assembled armed supporters at his premises, from where stones, petrol bombs and other projectiles were allegedly hurled, creating an atmosphere of terror in the locality.
The prosecution case further states that Sharma left his residence on February 25, 2020, to purchase household items but did not return. His body was later recovered from the Khajuri Khas drain near Chand Bagh Pulia. The post-mortem examination recorded multiple ante-mortem injuries caused by sharp and blunt weapons.
In its judgment delivered earlier this month, the trial court held that Hussain was a member of a heavily armed unlawful assembly that had engaged in rioting, arson and violence during the communal unrest. The court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the members of the unlawful assembly shared a common object and were aware that their actions were likely to result in death, leading to the conviction of Hussain and four others. The court will pronounce the sentence on July 31.
The post Ankit Sharma murder case: Delhi court reserves verdict on quantum of sentence for Tahir Hussain appeared first on India Legal.