The Delhi High Court on Monday sought a response from the Delhi Police on a plea filed by former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain against his conviction and life sentence for the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the Delhi Riots of 2020.
A Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan issued notice to the police on Hussain's appeal against the trial court order.
It said that the case will be heard on December 2 along with the appeals filed by other convicts in the case.
Ankit Sharma went missing on February 25, 2020, while the national capital was engulfed in communal riots. The first information report (FIR) related to his death was lodged the next day by his father Ravinder Kumar.
Kumar accused then councillor Hussain and his associates of pelting stones, using petrol bombs and firing from his office. The IB officer's body was later recovered from a nearby drain, prompting Ravinder to suspect Hussain and his associates.
The Karkardooma Court on July 13 convicted Hussain and four others - Nazir, Asim, Javed and Anas - for Sharma's murder.
They were held guilty for the offences under Sections 302 (murder), 188 (disobedience to an order promulgated by a public servant), 153A (promoting enmity between groups), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with a deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
On July 31, the Court awarded them life imprisonment for these offences. Notably, the Delhi Police had sought the death penalty for them.
In his appeal, Hussain has argued that the investigation against him has been tainted since the very beginning and was aimed at implicating him in order to satisfy public anger.
"The FIR is ante-dated and ante-timed, no material investigation was carried out until 06.03.2020, i.e. till after the Appellant was arrested in another case, witnesses have been planted, statements of genuine eyewitnesses manipulated and the actual perpetrators have not been brought to book," the appeal states.
Hussain contends that the trial court acquitted him of criminal conspiracy, abetment and exhortation for public mischief, but convicted him with the aid of Section 149 IPC, based primarily on his alleged membership of an unlawful assembly.
According to his plea, even though the FIR was based on Ravinder Kumar's complaint, he "completely disavowed the complaint on record" and made no allegations against him (Hussain).
The appeal also challenges the prosecution’s reliance on 5 witnesses to establish Hussain’s presence in the alleged unlawful assembly. He has also disputed the evidence of 2 brothers (cited as witnesses by the prosecution), alleging that they were “planted” as chance witnesses and that there were contradictions in their accounts regarding their presence at the spot.
Hussain's appeal was filed through Advocates Rajiv Mohan, Tara Narula, Sonal Sarda and Shivangi Sharma.
Special Public Prosecutors (SPP) Rajat Nair and Madhukar Pandey along with Advocate Dhruv Pande appeared for the Delhi Police.