New Delhi: The prosecution Monday sought death penalty against former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and four others convicted of the murder of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots.The court of additional sessions judge Parveen Singh was hearing the matter concerning Hussain, Nazim, Kasim, Javed and Anas, who were convicted on July 13.Special public prosecutor Madhukar Pandey argued in the court that the murder was “exceptionally brutal”.“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.Calling it a “cold-blooded murder”, Pandey added, “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.”Opposing the state’s plea, Hussain’s counsel, advocates Rajiv Mohan and Tara Narula, argued that no specific role had been attributed to their client and that six of the 11 accused had been acquitted in the case.Mohan submitted that the death penalty is warranted only in the “rarest of rare cases”, adding that “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.”Referring to Hussain’s acquittal under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, the defence further argued, “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.”Hussain was earlier convicted of murder, kidnapping or abduction with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, rioting and unlawful assembly, promoting enmity between groups, and disobedience of a public servant’s order under erstwhile IPC.
