Delhi HC Issues Notice on Tahir Hussain's Plea Against Riots Murder Conviction
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a petition moved by former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain challenging his conviction and life sentence in connection with the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) official Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots.
A bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan sought a response from the Delhi Police and scheduled the next hearing for December 2. The bench will also hear petitions filed by two other convicts in the case, Nazim and Kasim, on the same date. Special public prosecutor Rajat Nair and advocate Dhruv Pande appeared on behalf of the Delhi Police.
A trial court had convicted Hussain and four others on July 13 for Sharma's murder, noting that Hussain and an armed mob had carried out a savage and relentless attack. Six other accused individuals were acquitted by the court during the trial.
On July 31, the trial court sentenced Hussain and the four other convicts to life imprisonment. While describing the crime as horrendous and sickening, the court rejected the Delhi Police's plea seeking the death penalty. It ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish that the convicts were beyond the possibility of reform or that their continued existence in prison would pose a menace to society.
In his appeal challenging the conviction and sentencing orders, Hussain, represented by advocate Rajiv Mohan, argued that the investigation was tainted from the beginning and intended to implicate him to assuage public anger.
The petition claimed that the First Information Report (FIR) in the case was ante-dated, ante-timed, and registered on the basis of a fabricated complaint. It further stated that no meaningful probe took place until March 2020, when Hussain was arrested in connection with another case.
Hussain's appeal also alleged that witness statements were manipulated, witnesses were planted, and the actual perpetrators were not brought to book, contending that the trial court's verdict was based on conjectures rather than admissible evidence.
