The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that it will challenge the acquittal of six accused persons in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau (IB) staffer Ankit Sharma, who was killed during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The development came before a Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan while the Court was hearing appeals filed by two other accused, Nazim and Kasim, against their conviction and life imprisonment. The police’s decision to appeal against the acquittals means that the High Court will now be called upon to examine whether the trial court was correct in extending the benefit of doubt to the six persons who were acquitted.
The case relates to the violent communal riots that took place in North-East Delhi in February 2020. Ankit Sharma, who was working as an officer with the Intelligence Bureau, went missing during the violence. His father subsequently lodged a missing-person report after Sharma failed to return home. His body was later recovered from a drain near Chand Bagh Pulia. He was taken to Guru Tegh Bahadur Hospital, where he was declared brought dead. The circumstances surrounding his death subsequently became part of a major criminal prosecution arising from the Delhi riots.
According to the prosecution case, Sharma had left his residence at approximately 5 p.m. on the relevant day to purchase groceries and other household items. He did not return home for several hours, causing concern among his family members. His father eventually approached the police and reported him missing. The discovery of Sharma’s body in a drain subsequently transformed the missing-person investigation into a murder investigation. The complainant expressed suspicion that former Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain and his associates were responsible for Sharma’s killing. On this basis, an FIR was registered at Dayalpur Police Station.
The post-mortem examination revealed the severity of the injuries sustained by Sharma. According to the prosecution material reported in the case, the deceased had suffered 51 injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons and blunt force. The injuries were found on different parts of his body, including his head, face, chest, back and waist. The nature and number of injuries became an important aspect of the prosecution’s allegation that Sharma had been subjected to a brutal assault before his body was disposed of in the drain.
The criminal case was registered as FIR No. 65 of 2020 at Dayalpur Police Station. It eventually proceeded before the trial court, where several persons were prosecuted for their alleged involvement in Sharma’s murder. The case became particularly significant because it involved allegations arising directly from the communal violence in North-East Delhi and because Sharma was an Intelligence Bureau employee. The prosecution sought to establish the involvement of a group of accused persons in the events leading to his death.
On July 13, 2026, the trial court convicted former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain along with Javed, Anas, Nazim and Kasim in connection with the murder. The convictions covered several offences under the Indian Penal Code, including unlawful assembly, rioting, promoting enmity, kidnapping and murder. The prosecution had argued that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly and shared a common object that resulted in the violent attack and killing of Sharma.
The trial court subsequently sentenced Tahir Hussain, Javed, Anas, Nazim and Kasim to life imprisonment. The Delhi Police had sought the death penalty for the convicts, arguing that the circumstances and brutality of the crime warranted the maximum punishment. However, the trial court imposed life imprisonment. In its findings, the court described the murder as having been committed with extreme brutality during the communal violence and held that the circumstances surrounding the offence were particularly serious.
At the same time, the trial court acquitted six other accused persons. They were identified as Haseen, Sameer Khan, Firoz, Gulfam, Shoaib Alam and Muntajim. The acquittals meant that although the prosecution succeeded in securing convictions against five accused, the trial court was not satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the other six beyond the required legal standard. The Delhi Police has now decided to challenge these acquittals before the High Court.
The latest proceedings before the Delhi High Court arose from appeals filed by Nazim and Kasim, both of whom were convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment. They have challenged both their convictions and sentences before the High Court. Their appeals therefore seek judicial scrutiny of the findings recorded by the trial court against them and the punishment imposed. The Division Bench has issued notice on these appeals and has called for the trial court records so that the High Court can examine the evidence and reasoning underlying the convictions.
The High Court has also issued notice on the applications filed by Nazim and Kasim seeking suspension of their sentences. Suspension of sentence is different from deciding the appeal on merits. At this stage, the Court is considering whether the execution of the life sentences should be suspended while their appeals remain pending. The Bench has directed that the nominal rolls of the two appellants be requisitioned from the concerned jail authorities. These records generally provide relevant information regarding a prisoner’s custody and sentence status and can assist the Court while considering a request for suspension of sentence.
The matter has been listed for December 2, 2026, for consideration of the applications seeking suspension of sentence. This means that the High Court will subsequently examine the requests of Nazim and Kasim in greater detail. Their appeals against conviction will remain pending, and the Court’s eventual decision will determine whether the trial court’s findings against them can be sustained. At the same time, the Delhi Police’s proposed appeal against the six acquittals will introduce another important aspect into the High Court proceedings.
The police’s decision to challenge the acquittals is legally significant because an acquittal carries a presumption in favour of the accused. An appellate court examining an acquittal does not simply reconsider the case as though it were hearing the trial for the first time. It must carefully examine the evidence and determine whether the trial court’s conclusions were legally and factually sustainable. The prosecution therefore faces the task of demonstrating why the acquittals of Haseen, Sameer Khan, Firoz, Gulfam, Shoaib Alam and Muntajim should be interfered with. The High Court will ultimately consider the evidence and the applicable principles governing appeals against acquittal.
The latest development also places the Ankit Sharma murder case in a broader context of continuing litigation arising from the 2020 Delhi riots. Several criminal proceedings connected with the violence have continued before Delhi’s trial courts and the High Court. The Ankit Sharma case is particularly notable because it involves allegations of a coordinated attack during the riots, the killing of an Intelligence Bureau employee and the subsequent conviction of a former elected representative along with other accused persons. The proceedings therefore continue to attract significant legal and public attention.
The prosecution case against the convicted persons was not limited to the allegation of an isolated individual assault. The trial court’s findings concerning unlawful assembly and common object were important to the convictions. In July 2026, the court held that Tahir Hussain was part of an unlawful assembly that had assembled with an animus against Hindus and shared the common object of rioting, arson, looting and causing harm to members of the community. These findings formed part of the reasoning behind his conviction in the murder case.
The question of collective liability is particularly relevant in cases involving mob violence. Where a prosecution establishes the existence of an unlawful assembly and a shared common object, individual liability may arise under the relevant provisions governing unlawful assemblies and constructive liability. However, the prosecution must still establish the necessary factual and legal ingredients against each accused. The acquittal of six persons in the present case demonstrates that the trial court distinguished between the accused and did not automatically treat every person prosecuted as equally responsible. The Delhi Police’s proposed appeal will now give the High Court an opportunity to examine whether that distinction was correctly made on the evidence.
The medical evidence concerning Sharma’s injuries also remains an important component of the prosecution case. The post-mortem finding of 51 injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons and blunt force provided objective evidence concerning the violence inflicted upon the deceased. Such medical evidence can assist courts in determining the nature of the assault and in evaluating whether the prosecution’s account is consistent with the physical injuries found on the victim. In the present matter, the injuries were described as extending across the head, face, chest, back and waist, demonstrating the severity of the attack alleged by the prosecution.
The High Court’s decision to call for the trial court record is therefore an important procedural step. The appellate bench will need to examine the evidence considered by the trial court, the reasons for convicting the five accused, the reasons for acquitting the six others and the legal submissions advanced by both sides. The record will enable the High Court to assess whether the findings were supported by the evidence and whether any legal error warrants appellate interference. The Court has not, at this stage, expressed any final view regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused involved in the appeals.
It is equally important to distinguish the police’s announcement of an appeal from an actual appellate decision. The six acquitted accused continue to stand acquitted unless and until a competent appellate court interferes with those acquittals. Similarly, the convictions and life sentences imposed on Nazim and Kasim remain subject to their pending appeals. The High Court’s issuance of notice does not itself mean that either the convictions or acquittals have been upheld or overturned. Those questions will be decided after the Court considers the record and the submissions of the parties.
The case also illustrates the lengthy nature of criminal proceedings arising from major episodes of communal violence. The incident occurred during the North-East Delhi riots in February 2020, while the trial court’s conviction came more than six years later in July 2026. The present appeals and the proposed challenge against the acquittals mean that the legal process will continue before the High Court. The appellate proceedings will therefore play an important role in determining whether the trial court’s findings ultimately stand or require modification.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court is set to examine further developments in the murder case of Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma, who was killed during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots. The Delhi Police has informed the Court that it will appeal against the acquittal of six accused persons, while Nazim and Kasim have separately challenged their convictions and life sentences. The High Court Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan has issued notice on the appeals and directed that the trial court records and the nominal rolls of the two convicted appellants be produced. The matter has been listed for December 2, 2026, for consideration of the suspension-of-sentence applications. The forthcoming proceedings will therefore involve two significant questions: whether the convictions and life sentences imposed on Nazim and Kasim should be sustained, and whether the acquittals of the six other accused should be interfered with. Until the High Court decides these issues, the trial court’s convictions and acquittals remain subject to appellate scrutiny.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.