Back
Admits Convict Appeals in Ankit Sharma Murder; Police to Challenge Six Acquittals
The on Wednesday admitted the appeals filed by two convicts—Nazim and Kasim—challenging their conviction and life sentences in the murder of (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan issued notice to the on these appeals, while the prosecution disclosed that it is in the process of filing a separate appeal against the acquittal of six other accused in the same case. The court scheduled the next hearing for , including consideration of the convicts' applications seeking and .
The development marks a critical juncture in one of the most closely watched prosecutions arising from the communal violence that claimed 53 lives. The trial court, by its judgment, convicted former (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain and four others—Nazim, Kasim, Javed, and Anas—under various provisions of the , including (murder), (promoting enmity), (rioting), (unlawful assembly), (disobedience to order), and (kidnapping with intent to wrongfully confine). It acquitted six other accused for lack of sufficient evidence, and on , sentenced the five convicts to .
The High Court Hearing
During Wednesday's proceedings, Special Counsel for
told the Bench:
"State is also preferring an appeal. There are six accused who have been acquitted. We are in process."
The Court recorded this submission and issued notice on the convicts' appeals, noting that they arise from the
trial court judgment. The Bench also issued notice on the plea seeking
, directing the jail authorities to file a status report.
For the appellants, counsel argued that the conviction cannot be sustained because a was not conducted and the testimony of the key witness was not corroborated by independent material. The Bench, after hearing brief submissions, ordered "Admit. Issue notice." The court also noted the State's intention to challenge the acquittals, adding that the matters will be listed for further consideration on .
Background of the Case
Ankit Sharma, a 26-year-old officer with the , had returned home from office on , but stepped out again to purchase household items. He did not return. After a missing-person complaint was filed by his father, Ravinder Kumar, locals informed the family that a young man had been killed and his body thrown into the Khajuri Khas drain near the Chand Bagh mosque. The body was recovered the next day, .
The FIR, registered at Dayalpur Police Station, alleged that Tahir Hussain, then a municipal councillor whose office was nearby, had assembled a mob at his premises. The complaint stated that stones, petrol bombs, and gunfire were directed from that location, creating terror among residents. Ravinder Kumar expressed suspicion that his son was abducted, murdered, and disposed of by Hussain and others. The trial court found sufficient evidence to convict the five, but acquitted Hussain of the charge of under . The six acquitted individuals were identified as Haseen alias Mullaji/Salman, Sameer Khan, Firoz, Javed, Gulfam, Shoaib Alam alias Bobby, and Muntazim alias Musa.
The Legal Landscape: Appeals Against Acquittal
The State's planned appeal against the six acquittals carries a heavier burden than the convicts' appeals. Once a trial court acquits an accused, the is reinforced—what the has repeatedly described as a "" in favor of the accused. An appellate court will not reverse an acquittal merely because a different view of the evidence is possible. Interference is warranted only if the trial court's conclusion is perverse, ignores material evidence, or is legally unsustainable.
In this case, the trial court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the six . The State will need to demonstrate that the trial court's assessment was flawed—perhaps by showing that the evidence, particularly eyewitness testimony or forensic links, was not properly weighed. Legal observers note that the High Court's scrutiny of the acquittals will likely focus on whether the trial court gave undue weight to minor inconsistencies or failed to consider as a whole.
Implications for the Convicts' Appeals
For Nazim and Kasim, the appeals challenge both conviction and sentence. Their counsel's argument about the absence of a is a standard ground in riot-related cases, where witnesses may identify accused persons from a mob. The lack of is also a recurring issue. However, the trial court had relied on other evidence, including call records, recovery of weapons, and statements of protected witnesses. The High Court will evaluate whether the conviction is supported by the evidence on record.
The convicts' plea for is also pending. Given the gravity of the offense—murder during a large-scale riot—the court will weigh the strength of the appeal against the societal interest in finality of judgment. The status report from jail authorities will inform the court's decision on bail.
Broader Impact on Riots Prosecutions
This case is the first murder conviction to emerge from the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots. Its appellate trajectory is being closely watched because it will set a precedent for how courts handle multiple convictions and acquittals arising from the same incident. The State's decision to challenge the acquittals underscores its commitment to accountability, but the higher threshold for reversing acquittals means that even if the convictions stand, the acquitted individuals may remain free unless the State clears the "" bar.
For legal practitioners, the case highlights the nuanced standards applicable to appeals in criminal cases. The distinction between appealing a conviction (where the appellate court can re-appreciate evidence) and appealing an acquittal (where interference is limited) is central. The High Court's eventual rulings will offer clarity on how these standards apply to riot-related offenses, where evidence is often chaotic and witness testimony is fraught with challenges.
Conclusion
As the legal battle moves forward, the 's next hearing on will address both the suspension of sentences for Nazim and Kasim and the procedural status of the State's appeal against the six acquittals. The outcome will not only determine the fate of the individuals involved but also shape the jurisprudential approach to accountability in collective violence. With the court having admitted the convicts' appeals and issued notice, the stage is set for a substantive examination of the evidence that will be argued over the coming months.
