New Delhi, Jul 27 Delhi Police on Monday sought the death sentence for former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and four others convicted in the sensational murder case of IB officer Ankit Sharma, saying that "they fell to the level of being animals" while relentlessly assaulting the victim.
The submissions were made before Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh, who was hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence for the five convicts.
Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey submitted before the court that Sharma was abducted, assaulted relentlessly and killed by the convicts. They kept torturing him even after he had died, he said.
"Ankit Sharma was abducted and relentlessly assaulted before he was killed. A total of 51 wounds were found on his body, 18 of these 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 kept on the assault," he said.
He asserted that the nature of the crime was heinous, brutal and the convicts should be given the death sentence.
"This was a cold-blooded murder. These people turned into butchers during the crime. There was not even a single cloth except underwear on the body of Sharma. These people should be kept behind bars, (and) given the maximum death sentence," he said.
"The manner of this killing is not to be seen in isolation, but with the 53 people killed in these riots. So, the context also became relevant, the context in which the riots took place," he added.
It was further submitted that the deceased never provoked anyone, but the convicts themselves got involved in the murder.
"My humble submission is that the commission of this offence, the conduct of the convicts was such that there should be no leniency given 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 said.
Representing Hussain, advocates Rajiv Mohan and Tara Narula opposed the State's contention and argued that no specific role has been attributed to their client and it should also be considered that out of the 11 accused, six were acquitted in the case.
"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 only given in rarest of rare cases and in this case, the judgement only mentions the presence of mob at the crime scene, but not about the specific role of the convicts.
"The punishment of death cannot be determined merely on the basis of the injuries sustained. His (Hussain) conduct was good in jail during the 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 said.
Hussain's counsel said that throughout the trial, no evidence of criminal conspiracy (under IPC Section 120B) was presented before the court.
"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," he said.
Advocate Narula also contended that Hussain is the only 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 said.
On July 13, the court convicted Hussain and four others for the murder of Sharma, who was attacked by a mob during the 2020 Delhi riots. His body was later found in a drain.
In its verdict, the court held that Hussain was a member of a heavily armed mob that had assembled with animus against Hindus to commit rioting, arson and loot, and murdered Sharma in a "savage and relentless assault".
The court said the prosecution had proved that 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 Indian Penal Code sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to 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), read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly).
