Delhi Police seeks death penalty for Tahir Hussain, four others in Ankit Sharma murder case
The submissions were made before Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh, who was hearing arguments regarding the quantum of sentence of the five convicts.
Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey argued that Sharma was kidnapped, brutally attacked and killed, and that the attackers continued to injure him even after his death.
Also Read: CJP threatens to ‘protest again’; Warns government over alleged police action against protesters
“Ankit Sharma was kidnapped and brutally attacked before he was killed. A total of 51 wounds were detected on his body, 18 of which were with sharp weapons. The nature of the weapons used shows the intent and evil of the crime. They stooped to the level of animals. They continued the attack even after the victim died.”
Seeking maximum punishment, Pandey argued that the brutality of the crime warranted the death penalty.
“This was a cold-blooded murder. These people turned into butchers during the crime. There was not even a single piece of cloth on Sharma’s body except underwear. These people should be kept behind bars (and) sentenced to the harshest death penalty,” he said. He also argued that the murder cannot be seen in isolation from the broader context of the 2020 Delhi riots.
“The manner of this murder should not be considered in isolation, but in conjunction with the 53 people killed in these riots. Therefore, the context in which the riots took place also became relevant.” he added.
Pandey also told the court that Sharma did not provoke anyone and the convicts participated in the murder deliberately.
“My humble declaration is that the behavior of the convicts in the commission of this crime was such that no tolerance could be shown to the convicts. There was no provocation in this case. They were deliberately involved in a cold-blooded murder. In this case, the balance of penal policy should be shifted to the death penalty.”
Lawyers Rajiv Mohan and Tara Narula, who appeared on behalf of Hussain, opposed the prosecution’s defense, arguing that their client was not given a special role and pointing out that six of the 11 defendants were acquitted.
Mohan said, “The death penalty should not be given to every convicted person. First the aggravating circumstances and then the mitigating circumstances should be taken into account. As a result of the conviction, six of the 11 defendants were acquitted.”
He argued that the death penalty applied to the “rarest of cases” and argued that the trial court’s decision referred to the existence of a gang but did not specify the role of the individual convicts.
“The death penalty cannot be determined solely based on the injuries he received. Hussein’s behavior in prison during detention was good. The court recorded the statements of 91 witnesses, after which only five of the 11 defendants were convicted by the court,” he said.
Hussain’s counsel also submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC.
“The police alone could not control the violent mob and in such a situation, no single person can be held responsible for murder. He should be given a chance to reform,” he said.
Lawyer Tara Narula argued that Hussain was the sole breadwinner of his family and had a wife and three children.
“All three (children) were minors when she surrendered. Although her application was rejected in the Rouse Boulevard court on the grounds that the court did not have jurisdiction, it must be accepted that she came out to surrender. As her daughter grows, her guidance must be needed,” he said.
On July 13, the court found Hussain and four others guilty of murdering Sharma, whose body was recovered from drains after being attacked by a mob during the 2020 Delhi riots.
In its verdict, the court ruled that Hussain was part of a heavily armed illegal assembly, united by Hindu hostility, that committed rioting, arson and looting, and that Sharma was killed in a “savage and relentless attack”.
The court also found that the prosecution had established that the members of the unlawful assembly knew that pursuing their common goal could result in someone’s death.
Hussain was convicted under IPC Sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping), 147 (rioting), 148 (armed insurrection with deadly weapon), 153A (incitement of hostility), 188 (disobedience to an order issued by public servant), 149 (unlawful assembly).
(with PTI inputs)
