Tertius News is an AI-native newsroom: an AI model reads the linked source articles below and extracts what each outlet reported, so you can compare their coverage side by side. How this works →
Delhi High Court seeks police response on Tahir Hussain's appeal against conviction in Ankit Sharma murder case
The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Delhi Police on an appeal by former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain challenging his conviction and life sentence for the murder of IB officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 riots. The court admitted the appeal and listed it for hearing on December 2. Hussain's appeal alleges the investigation was aimed at implicating him to satisfy public anger.
By Tertius News AI Desk6 distinct · 6 mastheads · 6 articlesVersion 6Coverage Published
High Court admits Hussain's appeal
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Delhi Police on an appeal moved by former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain, challenging his conviction and life sentence in the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan admitted the appeal and listed it for hearing on December 2, along with other connected appeals. The bench also directed jail authorities to place on record the nominal roll of the convict and called for trial court records in the case.
Special Public Prosecutor Rajat Nair and advocate Dhruv Pande represented the Delhi Police in the hearing. Advocate Rajiv Mohan and Tara Narula appeared for Hussain. The court said it would hear Hussain's appeal separately after finishing the hearing of the appeals together, and that it would assess the role of each appellant.
Background: The murder and trial
Sharma was killed in the Dayal Pur area during the northeast Delhi riots in February 2020. His body was recovered from a drain in the Khajuri Khas area. According to the prosecution, on February 26, 2020, Sharma's father, Ravinder Kumar, informed officials at the Dayalpur police station that his son, who was posted with the IB, had been missing since February 25. Kumar later learnt from local residents that a person's body had been dumped in the Khajuri Khas drain after being murdered.
The prosecution alleged that Sharma's body had 51 injuries, seven of which were sufficient to cause death. The prosecution described the killing as a deliberate cold-blooded murder, allegedly committed with a heavy cutting weapon.
A Karkardooma court on July 13 convicted Hussain and four co-accused — Nazim, Kasim, Javed and Anas — in the case. The trial court said Hussain and an armed mob carried out a "savage" and "relentless" attack on Sharma. It acquitted six other accused.
On July 31, the trial court sentenced Hussain and the four co-convicts to life imprisonment, ruling that while the crime was "horrendous" and "sickening", the prosecution had failed to prove that the convicts were beyond the possibility of reform. The court rejected the Delhi Police's plea for capital punishment, observing that although the murder fell within the "rarest of the rare" category on account of its brutality, the prosecution had not established that the convicts' continued existence in prison would pose a menace to society.
The court also imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on Hussain and Rs 25,000 each on the other four convicts. They were additionally sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for the offence of kidnapping, and another sentence for rioting.
Hussain was convicted under Sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully 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) of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly).
Hussain's appeal
In his appeal challenging the trial court's July 13 and July 31 orders, Hussain, through advocate Rajiv Mohan, argued that the investigation was tainted from the outset and was aimed at implicating him to assuage public anger. The petition asserted that the first information report in the case was ante-dated, ante-timed, and based on a fabricated complaint. It added that no meaningful investigation was conducted until March 2020, when Hussain was arrested in another case.
The appeal alleged that witnesses were planted, statements of genuine eyewitnesses were manipulated, and the actual perpetrators were not brought to book. It added that the verdict convicting him is unsustainable in law, based on surmises and conjectures, unsupported by evidence.
The appeal also stated that the trial court acquitted Hussain under Section 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy), Section 505 IPC (exhortations for public mischief) and Sections 109/114 IPC (abetment and instigation) on account of the prosecution's failure to prove these charges beyond reasonable doubt. However, the trial court found him guilty on account of vicarious liability only, by the aid of Section 149 IPC, due to his alleged membership of an unlawful assembly that had committed offences in pursuance of a common object, particularly the killing of Sharma.
The appeal contended that the trial court relied on five witnesses — Pradeep Verma, Deepak Pradhan, Akash, Bharat and Priyanka Gaur — to convict Hussain under those sections. It argued that the trial court erroneously disregarded the statement of witness Vikalp Kochar, who categorically stated that he had not seen Hussain in the unlawful assembly, despite deposing in great detail about the killing of Sharma. The appeal also noted that Deepak Pradhan and Priyanka Gaur were not witnesses to the killing itself, with Pradhan having been confined within the premises of a temple located away from the place of incident, and Gaur having stayed within the lane where her house was located.
Context: The 2020 riots
Communal clashes broke out in northeast Delhi on February 24, 2020, after violence between supporters and opponents of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act spiralled, leaving at least 53 people dead and scores injured. The riots provided the backdrop to Sharma's murder and the subsequent trial.
How each outlet told it
A framing line is our reading of that outlet's own text — an interpretation, not a quotation and not a fact we assert. Check it against what the outlet published.
Framing: The High Court's procedural action of seeking Police response on the appeal against conviction and life sentence
Facts Included:
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to Delhi Police on an appeal moved by Tahir Hussain.
Tahir Hussain has challenged the conviction and sentence in the Ankit Sharma murder case.
IB Official Ankit Sharma was murdered in the Dayal Pur area during the North East Delhi Riots in February 2020.
His mutilated body was recovered from a drain.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan issued notice and sought a response from Delhi Police.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan and Tara Narula appeared for Tahir Hussain.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Rajat Nair appeared for Delhi police and accepted notice.
Tahir Hussain alongwith others 4 was sentenced to life sentence by the Karkardooma Court on July 31.
They were Convicted on July 13.
The appeal has been filed through Advocate Rajiv Mohan, Tara Narula, Sonal Sarda and Shivangi Sharma.
Appellant Tahir Hussain was held guilty for commission of offences punishable under section 188 IPC, 153A read with section 149 IPC, 147 read with Section 149 IPC, section 148 read with section 149 IPC, section 365 read with section 149 IPC and section 302 read with149 IPC.
It is stated that the court had acquitted Tahir Hussain under section 协议120B IPC (criminal conspiracy), 505 IPC (exhortations for public mischief) and 109/114 IPC (abetment and instigation) on account of the prosecution's failure to prove these charges against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial Court erroneously found him guilty on account of vicarious liability only(by the aid of Section 149 IPC) due to alleged membership of an unlawful assembly which had committed offences in pursuance of a common object, particularly the killing of Ankit Sharma.
The trial Court completely disregarded the fabrication of the complaint.
In order to convict the Appellant under the sections with the aid of Section 149(unlawful assembly), the Trial Court relied upon 5 witnesses,namely Pradeep Verma,Deepak Pradhan,Akash,Bharat and Priyanka Gaur.
It is further stated that the Trial Court erroneously disregarded the statement of Vikalp Kochar in relation to Tahir Hussain despite him categorically stating th he had not seen him in the unlawful assembly.
The said witness had otherwise deposed in great detail regarding the killing of Ankit Sharma,which the Trial Court also found most compelling and believable.
The plea has also mentioned th Deepak Pradhan Priyanka Gaur are not witnesses to the killing of Ankit Sharma,and thus,are witnesses who have no bearing upon the case.
Deepak Pradhan was confined within the premises of the temple to which he had come,which temple was inside a gali,away from Chand Bagh Pulia,the place of incident.
Priyanka Gaur also stayed within the gali in which her house was located.
Karkardooma court on July 31 awarded a life sentence to Tahir Hussain and 4 other Convicts.
The prosecution had sought capital punishment for all the convicts,citing the barbarity during commission of the offence.
Additional Sessions Judge(ASJ) awarded a life sentence to Tahir Husain,Nazim,Kashim,Javed,and Anas for the offence of murder.
The court imposed a fine of Rs. .5 lakh on Tahir Hussain and Rs. 25000 on the other Accused persons each.
They were additionally sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment for the offence of Kidnapping and imposed fine also.
Special Public Prosecutor(SPP) Madhukar Pandey had sought capital punishment and submitted th these convicts are savage.
It was submitted th it was a cold-blooded murder.
The SPP had also said before the court th the killing should not be seen in isolation,adding th In north east Delhi riots,53 people died.
It was also said th there were 51 injuries on the body of Ankit Sharma;7 were sufficient to cause death.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan along with Advocate Tara Narula,counsel for Tahir,prayin for leniency in sentence,had said th the death sentence cannot be given in every murder case.
It was also submitted th 6 accused out of 11 have been acquitted by the court.
Tahir Hussain has been convicted for the substantive offence of Section 188,and he has vicarious liability for other offences and common intention.
It was further submitted by the defence counsel th there was a huge crowd at Chand Bagh Pulia.
The counsel for Tahir Hussain had also said th the role attributed to the accused is a guiding factor in giving a sentence.
The counsel said th the police were present there and were not able to stop the Rioting.
There is no preparation,no Conspiracy;the deceased was taken by the crowd,and brutality was committed.
It was also submitted th the conduct of Tahir Hussain remained satisfactory during custody.
In rebuttal,the SPP Madhukar Pandey had said th the person seeking mercy should show mercy.
It was submitted th Ankit Sharma was dragged after tying the clothes around his neck and he was thrown in a nala from a building.
MCD councillor,a public servant,it was the duty of Tahir Hussain to save Ankit Sharma.
Each and every member of the mob is liable to be punished for the offence.
While pleading mercy,they(Convicts) are telling half-truths,the SPP had said.
Framing: The headline emphasizes the Delhi High Court's action of seeking a police response on Tahir Hussain's challenge to his murder conviction.
Facts Included:
Delhi High Court sought a response from police on Tahir Hussain's appeal
Hussain challenges his conviction and life sentence for the murder of Ankit Sharma
Hussain and four others were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder
A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan admitted Hussain's appeal and listed it for hearing on December 2
Hussain has challenged the trial court's judgment convicting and sentencing him, arguing that the investigation was conducted with the aim of implicating him to satisfy public anger
On February 26, 2020, Sharma's father, Ravinder Kumar, informed officials at Dayalpur police station that his son, who was posted with the IB, had been missing since February 25
Kumar later learnt from local residents that a person's body had been dumped in the Khajuri Khas drain after being murdered
The body was subsequently recovered from the drain, with the prosecution alleging that Sharma had suffered 51 injuries
On July 31, the trial court sentenced Hussain and four co-convicts — Nazim, Qasim, Javed and Anas — to life imprisonment for Sharma's murder
The court held that the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting the death penalty
Communal clashes broke out in northeast Delhi on February 24, 2020, after violence between supporters and opponents of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act spiralled, leaving at least 53 people dead
Framing: The headline emphasizes the High Court's issuance of a notice in Tahir Hussain's plea against his conviction, highlighting the procedural action taken by the court.
Facts Included:
A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan sought Delhi Police's response and fixed December 2 as the next date of hearing
The court would hear the petitions filed by two other convicts, Nazim and Kasim, the same day
Special public prosecutor Rajat Nair and advocate Dhruv Pande represented the Delhi Police
A trial court on July 13 convicted Hussain and four others for Sharma's murder
It said Hussain and an armed mob carried out a savage and relentless attack
The trial court acquitted six other accused
On July 31, the trial court sentenced Hussain and four others to life, ruling that while the crime was horrendous and sickening, the prosecution had failed to prove that the convicts were beyond the possibility of reform
The court rejected the Delhi Police's plea for capital punishment
It observed that although the murder fell within the rarest of the rare category on account of its brutality, the prosecution had not established that the convicts' continued existence in prison would pose a menace to society
In his appeal challenging the trial court's July 13 and July 31 orders, Hussain, through advocate Rajiv Mohan, argued that the investigation was tainted from the outset and was aimed at implicating him to assuage public anger
The petition asserted that the first information report in the case was ante-dated, ante-timed, and based on a fabricated complaint
It added that no meaningful investigation was conducted until March 2020, when he was arrested in another case
The appeal alleged that witnesses were planted, statements of genuine eyewitnesses were manipulated, and the actual perpetrators were not brought to book
It added that the verdict convicting him is unsustainable in law, based on surmises and conjectures, unsupported by evidence
Framing: The headline emphasizes the Delhi High Court's action of seeking a police response to Tahir Hussain's appeal in the IB officer murder case.
Facts Included:
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought response of police on a plea by former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain challenging his conviction and life sentence for the murder of Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma during the February 2020 riots.
Justice Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan admitted the appeal and listed it for hearing on December 2 along with other connected appeals.
The court also directed jail authorities to place on record the nominal roll of the convict and called for trial court records in the case.
Hussain challenged the trial court's judgment convicting and sentencing him in the case, saying the investigation was aimed at implicating him to satisfy public anger.
According to the prosecution, on February 26, 2020, complainant Ravinder Kumar informed the Dayalpur police station officials that his son Ankit Sharma, who was posted in the Intelligence Bureau (IB), was missing since February 25, 2020.
He later learnt from some locals that a person's body was dumped in the Khajuri Khas nala from the mosque of Chand Bagh pulia after being murdered.
The prosecution alleged that Sharma's body was recovered from Khajuri Khas nala and there were 51 injuries on his body.
The trial court had on July 31 sentenced Hussain and four co-convicts Nazim, Qasim, Javed and Anas to life imprisonment for the IB officer's murder, saying the case did not fall within the 'rarest of rare' category warranting death penalty.
Communal clashes had broken out in northeast Delhi on February 24, 2020, after violence between citizenship law supporters and protesters spiralled out of control leaving at least 53 people dead and scores injured.
Framing: The headline emphasizes the High Court's issuance of notice to Delhi Police regarding Tahir Hussain's plea against conviction in the IB officer murder case
Facts Included:
The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Delhi Police on an appeal moved by former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain in connection with his conviction in the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 northeast Delhi riots
The HC has sought a response from the Delhi Police and listed the appeal ford hearing on December 2, along with other connected appeals
The Bench has also called for Hussain's nominal roll from the jail authorities
Sharma was killed in the Dayal Pur area during the northeast Delhi riots in February 2020
A Karkardooma court had on July 13, nearly six years after the incident, convicted Hussain and four co-accused -- Nazim, Kasim, Javed and Anas -- in the case
On July 31, the court sentenced them to life imprisonment
Hussain has challenged the conviction before the High Court
On July 13, nearly six years after the incident, the court convicted Hussain, Nazim, Kasim, Javed and Anas
Hussain was convicted under Sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully 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) of the IPC, read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly
AI-extracted; can misattribute a claim — see Methodology.
Each row is one claim, attributed to the outlet whose wording states it most clearly. Confidence rates how directly the source text states the claim — explicit and unhedged rates high; hedged, pieced-together, or internally inconsistent statements rate lower. It does not measure whether the claim is true. Status is Contested when two claims on this page negate each other; otherwise it counts the distinct outlets we found asserting that specific claim — so a single-source claim can still show high confidence, and a multi-source claim can show medium. Every one of those outlets is named beside the status, so you can check the count against the list. For claims extracted before we began storing that list, the row says so: it names the outlet the claim is quoted from and states that we have not recorded which outlets backed it. Outlets wrote at different times, so a figure that evolves — a casualty count, for example — can legitimately differ between rows; check the "as of" time next to each claim's source.
Claim
Confidence
Status
ClaimThe Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Delhi Police on an appeal moved by former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain in connection with his conviction in the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma during the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots.
ClaimHussain has challenged the trial court's judgment convicting and sentencing him, arguing that the investigation was conducted with the aim of implicating him to satisfy public anger.
ClaimOn February ́26, ́2020, Sharma's father, Ravinder Kumar, informed officials at Dayalpur police station that his son, who was posted with the IB, had been missing since February ́25.
ClaimKumar later learnt from local residents that a person's body had been dumped in the Khajuri Khas drain after being murdered, and subsequently recovered from the drain.
ClaimCommunal clashes broke out in northeast Delhi on February ́24, ́2020, after violence between supporters and opponents of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act spiralled, leaving at least ́53 people dead.
ClaimThe trial court observed that the murder fell within the 'rarest of rare' category on account of its brutality, but the prosecution had not established that the convicts' continued existence in prison would pose a menace to society.
ClaimIn his appeal, Hussain, through advocate Rajiv Mohan, argued that the investigation was tainted from the outset and was aimed at implicating him to assuage public anger.
ClaimThe appeal alleged that witnesses were planted, statements of genuine eyewitnesses were manipulated, and the actual perpetrators were not brought to book.
ClaimHussain was convicted under Sections 302 (murder), 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully 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) of the IPC, read with Section ́149 (unlawful assembly).
ClaimThe Delhi High Court issued a notice to the Delhi police on Wednesday seeking a response after Tahir Hussain challenged his life sentence conviction over the murder of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Delhi riots.
ClaimHussain and the four other convicts were additionally sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for the offence of Kidnapping,and another sentence for rioting.
ClaimThe trial court acquitted Tahir Hussain under section ́120B IPC (criminal conspiracy), ́505 IPC (exhortations for public mischief) and ́109/114 IPC (abetment and instigation) on account of the prosecution's failure to prove these charges against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
ClaimThe Trial Court relied upon 5 witnesses, namely Pradeep Verma,Deepak Pradhan,Akash,Bharat and Priyanka Gaur, to convict the Appellant under the sections with the aid of Section ́149 (unlawful assembly).).
ClaimThe Trial Court erroneously disregarded the statement of Vikalp Kochar in relation to Tahir Hussain despite him categorically stating that he had not seen him in the unlawful assembly.
ClaimThe said witness Vikalp Kochar had otherwise deposed in great detail regarding the killing of Ankit Sharma,which the Trial Court also found most compelling and believable.
ClaimDeepak Pradhan was confined within the premises of the temple to which he had come, which temple was inside a gali,away from Chand Bagh Pulia,the place of incident.
ClaimAdvocate Rajiv Mohan along with Advocate Tara Narula,counsel for Tahir,while praying for leniency in sentence,had said that the death sentence cannot be given in every murder case.
ClaimThe High Court bench said that all connected appeals arising out of the same judgment are coming up on December 2 and that it would assess the role of everybody separately but would hear them together.
6 distinct · 6 mastheads · 6 articles consulted: ANI (Asian News International), The Economic Times, Hindustan Times, The New Indian Express, The Times of India, The Tribune50 claims extractedVersion 6Written 2026-09-02