The Delhi High Court has called upon the Delhi Police to respond to a plea by Tahir Hussain, a former councillor of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), challenging his conviction and life imprisonment sentence for the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Delhi Riots.
A bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan issued a notice to the police regarding Hussain’s appeal of the trial court’s decision. The court has scheduled the hearing for December 2, when it will also consider appeals from other convicts in the case.
Ankit Sharma’s disappearance on February 25, 2020, coincided with the eruption of communal riots in the national capital. Following Sharma’s disappearance, his father, Ravinder Kumar, filed a First Information Report (FIR) on February 26, alleging that Hussain and his associates engaged in stone-pelting, hurled petrol bombs, and fired shots from Hussain’s office. Tragically, Sharma’s body was found in a nearby drain, which led Ravinder to suspect Hussain’s involvement.
On July 13, the Karkardooma Court convicted Hussain and four others—Nazir, Asim, Javed, and Anas—of Sharma’s murder. They were found guilty under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 302 (murder), 188 (disobedience to an order promulgated by a public servant), 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), and 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person). On July 31, the court sentenced them to life imprisonment for these offenses, despite the Delhi Police’s request for the death penalty.
In his appeal, Hussain claims the investigation against him was flawed and intended to appease public outrage. He argues that the FIR was backdated and its timing manipulated, claiming no significant investigation took place until March 6, 2020, after his arrest in another case. Hussain further alleges that witnesses were fabricated, genuine eyewitness statements were altered, and the true culprits were not apprehended.
Hussain’s appeal emphasizes that the trial court acquitted him of charges related to criminal conspiracy, abetment, and incitement to public mischief but convicted him under Section 149 IPC, primarily for his purported association with an unlawful assembly. He disputes the FIR’s foundation on Ravinder Kumar’s complaint, asserting Kumar later retracted the allegations against him.
The appeal also disputes the prosecution’s reliance on five witnesses to prove Hussain’s involvement in the unlawful assembly, contending that two brothers cited as witnesses were “planted” and that inconsistencies existed in their testimonies regarding their presence at the scene.
Hussain’s legal representation includes Advocates Rajiv Mohan, Tara Narula, Sonal Sarda, and Shivangi Sharma. The Delhi Police is represented by Special Public Prosecutors (SPP) Rajat Nair and Madhukar Pandey, with Advocate Dhruv Pande also appearing for the prosecution.
