Back
Convicts Former AAP Councillor Tahir Hussain for Murder of IB Official Ankit Sharma in 2020 Delhi Riots Case
A special court in Delhi has delivered a landmark verdict in the murder case of officer Ankit Sharma, who was killed during the widespread communal violence in Northeast Delhi in . Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh, presiding over the , convicted former councillor Tahir Hussain and four co-accused—Nazim, Kasim, Javed, and Anas—for their roles in the brutal incident.
Chaos and Brutality at Chand Bagh Pulia The court’s 320-page judgment meticulously reconstructed the events of . The findings describe how a “murderously armed mob” surrounded Ankit Sharma near Chand Bagh Pulia, subsequently dragging him toward the site before subjecting him to a “savage and relentless assault.” The court concluded that Sharma’s death was unequivocally , with the indicating 51 external injuries.
Judge Singh identified the mob as an "" that gathered with a clear animus against the Hindu community, sharing a common objective to commit rioting, arson, loot, and violence.
A Legal Reckoning: The core of the court's verdict rests on the principle of under . While acknowledging that conclusive evidence of personal participation in the fatal strikes was not established against every individual convict, the court maintained that their membership in a heavily armed, violent mob made them liable for the resulting death.
"It is further established that the members of this assembly had surrounded and dragged Ankit Sharma towards Chand Bagh Pulia and had thereby abducted him where after in a savage and relentless assault upon his person, had murdered him,"
the judgment noted.
Judicial Scrutiny and Police Lapses While the court upheld the conviction of five individuals, it was notably critical of the 's investigation. Judge Singh observed that some police witnesses made “considerable improvements” in their court testimonies regarding what they allegedly witnessed compared to their initial statements recorded under , causing the court to deem them unreliable.
Furthermore, regarding the acquittal of several other accused, including Haseen @ Mullaji and Sameer Khan, the judge characterized the timing of witness discoveries as “too serendipitous.” The court pointed out:
“When it comes to believing that by virtue of coincidence these witnesses would be near the scene of crime on the same days and at the exact same time when the investigating officer would bring the three accused for spot identification, I find it too serendipitous.”
Key Observations The court's judgment offers a stern analysis of the nature of the that ravaged the area:
-
On the :
"The prosecution has successfully proved that at the time of the incident, accused Tahir Hussain... was a member of a large crowd and which, with animus against Hindus, had assembled at Chand Bagh Pulia..."
-
On brutal necessity:
"It is further proved beyond all reasonable doubts... that the members of this assembly had surrounded and dragged Ankit Sharma towards Chand Bagh Pulia and had thereby abducted him where after in a savage and relentless assault upon his person, had murdered him."
-
On :
" fastens a vicarious criminal liability on every member of an for any offence which is committed in prosecution of the of such an assembly."
Ruling and Implications The court convicted the five accused for offences including rioting, kidnapping, and murder under various sections of the IPC, read with Section 149. However, it acquitted them of (), citing an absence of substantive evidence to prove when or how the conspiracy was hatched, despite the tell-tale signs of pre-planning, such as the tampering with CCTV cameras.
The verdict serves as a significant legal marker in the ongoing Delhi Riots cases. While the court did not find evidence for a formal , it maintained that membership in an armed, rioting mob is sufficient to warrant conviction for the resultant murder of an individual. Arguments on the sentencing for the five convicts are set to be heard on .
