Delhi Court Deliberates Sentencing in Ankit Sharma Murder Case Linked to 2020 Riots

A Delhi court is set to announce its sentencing decision for five individuals convicted in the murder of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 riots. The prosecution has called for the death penalty, citing the brutal nature of the crime, while the defense argues against it, highlighting mitigating circumstances. The court's ruling will consider the context of the riots and the roles of the accused. This high-profile case has drawn significant attention, and the final verdict is expected on July 31.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jul 27, 2026, 18:14 IST

Court Decision on Sentencing Delayed

On January 27, a Delhi court announced that it would reserve its decision regarding the sentencing of former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain and four others, found guilty in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Delhi riots. After hearing arguments on the sentencing duration for the five convicted individuals, Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh postponed the verdict until July 31. During the proceedings, the Delhi Police urged the court to impose the death penalty on all five convicts, stating that they had resorted to 'animalistic behavior' while attacking Sharma.

Details of the Crime

Special Public Prosecutor Madhukar Pandey informed the court that the convicts had abducted, brutally assaulted, and ultimately killed Sharma. He noted that even after Sharma's death, they continued to attack him, emphasizing the brutality of the crime. 'Ankit Sharma was kidnapped and killed after being mercilessly beaten,' he stated, revealing that Sharma's body bore 51 wounds, 18 of which were inflicted by sharp weapons. This evidence highlighted the intent behind the crime and the cruelty of the perpetrators.

Arguments for the Death Penalty

Pandey characterized the crime as heinous and argued that the convicts deserved the death penalty. He described the murder as ruthless, stating, 'At the time of the incident, these individuals acted like butchers.' He pointed out that Sharma was found without any clothing except for his underwear, asserting that the convicts should be imprisoned and sentenced to death. He further argued that the context of the riots, which resulted in the deaths of 53 individuals, should also be considered when determining the severity of the punishment.

Defense's Counterarguments

Representing Hussain, lawyers Rajiv Mohan and Tara Narula contested the prosecution's claims, arguing that no specific role of their client was established. They highlighted that six out of eleven accused had already been acquitted in this case. Mohan contended that not every convicted individual should receive the death penalty, suggesting that mitigating circumstances should also be taken into account. He emphasized that the presence of a crowd at the crime scene was noted, but the specific roles of the convicts were not adequately addressed.

Considerations for Sentencing

The defense argued that Hussain's behavior during his time in custody was good and that the court had recorded statements from 91 witnesses, resulting in only five convictions out of eleven accused. They also pointed out that no evidence of a criminal conspiracy was presented during the trial. Narula added that Hussain was the sole breadwinner for his family, which includes his wife and three children, and that he had attempted to surrender during the proceedings.

Awaiting Final Verdict

After hearing arguments from both sides, the court has reserved its decision on sentencing until July 31. On July 13, the court had convicted Hussain and four others for Sharma's murder, which occurred during the riots when a mob attacked him, with his body later discovered in a drain. The court's ruling indicated that Hussain was part of an armed mob that gathered with the intent to riot, incite violence, and commit robbery, leading to Sharma's brutal murder.