Delhi Police Seeks Death Penalty for Accused in Ankit Sharma Murder Case

The Delhi Police has requested a local court to impose the death penalty on former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and four others convicted in the murder of IB officer Ankit Sharma. The police described the crime as heinous and brutal, arguing that it falls under the rarest of cases. The defense countered that not every murder warrants capital punishment and highlighted flaws in the prosecution's case. As the court deliberates, the arguments from both sides reveal the complexities surrounding this high-profile case, raising questions about justice and accountability.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jul 27, 2026, 18:52 IST

Delhi Police Appeals for Harsh Sentencing

On Sunday, the Delhi Police approached a local court, urging it to impose the death penalty on former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and four others convicted in the 2020 murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma. The police characterized the crime as heinous, brutal, and premeditated, placing it in the category of the rarest of cases. Hussain's attorney opposed this appeal, arguing that the case does not meet the necessary legal criteria for capital punishment. During discussions on sentencing, the prosecution requested the maximum penalty, asserting that the defendants acted with extreme cruelty and thus do not deserve leniency.

Details of the Crime and Prosecution's Argument

In their plea for the death penalty, the Delhi Police described the accused as having turned into 'butchers and beasts' during the crime. The prosecution highlighted that even after Sharma's death, he continued to be attacked, indicating the brutality of the assault. They informed the court that when Sharma's body was discovered, he was only wearing underwear. The police contended that the manner of the attack was so horrific that it warranted no forgiveness. The prosecution detailed that Sharma suffered 51 injuries, with seven of them potentially fatal and 16 inflicted by sharp weapons, underscoring the extreme cruelty involved. They argued that this case falls into the category of the rarest of the rare, deserving the death penalty for all five defendants.

Defense's Counterarguments Against the Death Penalty

In response to the plea, Hussain's lawyer contended that not every murder case warrants the death penalty, which should be reserved for the 'rarest of rare' instances. The defense pointed out that while the trial court examined 91 witnesses, only five out of eleven accused were convicted. They also claimed that the prosecution failed to establish a criminal conspiracy under IPC Section 120B. The defense further noted that many individuals considered part of the mob were acquitted, and the police had failed to control the violence. Therefore, they argued that no single individual could be held entirely responsible for Sharma's murder. Additionally, the defense asserted that Hussain was not present at the scene of the crime, and the severity or number of injuries alone should not justify the death penalty.