IB officer's murder: Court reserves order on quantum of sentence against Tahir Hussain, 4 others for July 31

Here is the rewritten version with the facts and meaning preserved while improving clarity and readability:

A Delhi court on Monday, July 27, reserved its order on the quantum of sentence for former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and four others convicted in the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Delhi riots. The court will pronounce its order on July 31.

Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh reserved the verdict after hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence for the five convicts.

During the hearing, the Delhi Police sought the death penalty for all five convicts, arguing that the brutality of the crime warranted the maximum punishment.

Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey submitted that Sharma was abducted, brutally assaulted and murdered by the convicts. He told the court that the attackers continued to inflict injuries even after Sharma had died.

"Ankit Sharma was abducted and relentlessly assaulted before he was killed. A total of 51 wounds were found on his body; 18 of those were inflicted with sharp weapons. The nature of the weapons used shows the intent and diabolical nature of the crime. They fell to the level of being animals. Even after the victim died, they continued the assault," Pandey said.

He argued that the offence was exceptionally heinous and deserved capital punishment.

"This was a cold-blooded murder. These people turned into butchers during the crime. There was not even a single cloth except underwear on Sharma’s body. These people should be kept behind bars, (and) given the death sentence," he said.

Pandey further argued that the killing should not be viewed in isolation but in the broader context of the 2020 Delhi riots, in which 53 people lost their lives.

"The manner of this killing is not to be seen in isolation, but with the 53 people killed in the riots. So, the context also became relevant, the context in which the riots took place," he added.

The prosecutor also submitted that Sharma had not provoked anyone and that the convicts had deliberately participated in the murder.

"My humble submission is that the commission of this offence, and the conduct of the convicts, was such that no leniency should be shown to the convicts. There was no provocation in this case. They deliberately got involved in a cold-blooded murder. In this case, the balance of sentencing policy should be shifted towards the death sentence," Pandey argued.

"Those who did not show mercy to people during the riots should not be entitled to seek mercy," he added.

Representing Hussain, advocates Rajiv Mohan and Tara Narula opposed the prosecution's plea for the death penalty, arguing that no specific role had been attributed to their client and pointing out that six of the 11 accused had been acquitted.

"Every convicted person should not be given the death sentence. Aggravating circumstances should be considered first and then the mitigating circumstances. Of conviction, out of the 11 accused, six have been acquitted," advocate Mohan said.

He contended that the death penalty is reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases and argued that the judgment referred only to the presence of a mob at the crime scene without assigning a specific role to the individual convicts.

"The punishment of death cannot be determined merely based on the injuries sustained. His (Hussain) conduct was good in jail during custody. The court had recorded the statements of 91 witnesses, after which only five out of the 11 accused were convicted by the court," he submitted.

Hussain's counsel also argued that the prosecution had failed to produce evidence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code during the trial.

"Police themselves were unable to control the violent mob, and in such a situation, a single individual cannot be held responsible for the murder. He should be given a chance to reform," Mohan argued.

Advocate Tara Narula submitted that Hussain is the sole breadwinner of his family and has a wife and three children.

"All three (children) were minors when he surrendered. Though his application was rejected in the Rouse Avenue court due to non-jurisdiction of the court, it should be considered that he came out to surrender. His guidance must be required as his daughter grows up," she argued.

On July 13, the court convicted Hussain and four others for the murder of Ankit Sharma, who was attacked by a mob during the 2020 Delhi riots. His body was later recovered from a drain.

In its judgment, the court held that Hussain was part of a heavily armed mob that had assembled with the common intention of rioting, arson and looting, and that Sharma was murdered in a "savage and relentless assault".

The court observed that the prosecution had successfully established that the members of the unlawful assembly knew that, in pursuing their common object, "death could (be the) result and someone could be killed".

Hussain was convicted under Sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 153A (promoting enmity), and 188 (disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly).

(With inputs from PTI)