New Delhi [India], August 12 : The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice on an application seeking suspension of the life sentence of Nazim and Kasim. The High Court has also issued notice on their appeals against their conviction and life sentence in the Ankit Sharma murder case. They were sentenced on July 31 by the Karkardooma Court.
Ankit Sharma was murdered during the North East Delhi riots in February 2020 in the Dayal Pur area. His mutilated body was recovered from a drain.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan issued notice and sought reply from Delhi Police. The matter has been listed for hearing on December 3, 2026.
The appellant Nazim and Kasim have challenged their conviction and sentence for murder and other offences before the Delhi High Court.
They were Convicted alongwith 3 other including former MCD Councillor Tahir Hussain, by Karkardooma Court on July 13. The convicts have moved their appeals through advocate Bilal Anwar Khan. A senior advocate appeared for the appellants, who are real brothers.
It was submitted that there was evidence against the appellant and no corroboration of witnesses against the appellant. Despite they have been convicted and sentenced to life Imprisonment based on the statement only.
On July 31, Delhi's Karkardooma court had awarded a life sentence to Tahir Hussain and 4 other Convicts in the IB official Ankit Sharma murder case of 2020.
While sentencing, the Court had observed that the crime was heinous, barbaric, and shook the conscience of society. The deceased was dragged like an animal after the murder.
The court had said that, however, it doesn't fall under the category of rarest of rare cases. The Prosecution was not able of attribute any specific role to any of the convicts.
The prosecution had sought capital punishment for all the convicts, citing the barbarity during the commission of the offence. It was also submitted that a heavy cutting weapon was used in the commission of the offence.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) awarded life sentence to Tahir Husain, Nazim, Kasim, Javed, Anas for the offence of murder. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 5 lakh on Tahir Husain and Rs. 25000 on the other Accused persons each. They have been additionally sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment for the offence of Kidnapping and imposed a fine also. They were also sentenced for the offences of rioting, unlawful assembly, etc.
After the sentence, while leaving the court room told the media that he is not satisfied with the judgement and the score will be settled at the High Court.
The court had reserved the order on sentence after hearing the submissions of Delhi and counsel for accused persons on July 27. The court had convicted Ex MCD councillor Tahir Hussain and 4 other accused on July 13.
On July 27, 2026 Prosecution had sought capital punishment for Tahir Hussain and 4 others for murdering Ankit Sharma. It had said that the crime was anti-social and abhorrent. It is a rare case of rare cases.
Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Madhukar Pandey had sought capital punishment and submitted that these convicts are savage. They did not remain human while committing the offence.
They should be kept behind bars and should be provided a death sentence, the SPP had submitted. It was submitted that it was a cold-blooded murder. It was deliberate. A heavy cutting weapon was used. It is akin to a butcher.
The SPP had also said before the court that the killing should not be seen in isolation, adding that in the north-east Delhi riots 53 people died. So the context is important. The conduct of the rioters, including convicts, demands that they be given a death sentence, the SPP had said.
It was also said that there were 51 injuries on the body of Ankit Sharma; 7 were sufficient to cause death. A heavy cutting weapon was used. It is also submitted that the convicts were not provoked by the deceased.
" They committed the offence without caring for the punishment. They deserve a death sentence," SPP had submitted.
The SPP had also submitted that the law laid down by the Supreme Court squarely applied to this case. They should be given a death sentence.On the other hand, Advocate Rajiv Mohan, counsel for Tahir, while praying for leniency in sentence, had said that the death sentence cannot be given in every murder case. The aggravating and mitigating factors should be assessed.
The counsel had said that Tahir Hussain has been convicted for vicarious liability for unlawful assembly. The prosecution was not able to prove any aspect of Conspiracy during the trial, the counsel added.
" In this case, police cited conspiracy, and in another case police have alleged larger conspiracy, adding that the Accused person charged for actually inflicting injuries has been acquitted," Advocate Rajiv Mohan had argued.
The counsel for Tahir Hussain had also said that the role attributed to the accused is a guiding factor to give a sentence. The counsel said that police was present there and was not able to stop the Rioting. In this case, the liability cannot be put upon the Accused. His conviction is based upon the presence of the convict, the counsel submitted.
There is no preparation, no conspiracy; the deceased was taken by the crowd, and brutality was done. This case is not at par with the cases which provided a death sentence, the counsel argued. It was also submitted that the conduct of Tahir Hussain remained satisfactory during the custody. It should be considered while giving the sentence.
The counsel had said that no particular role has been attributed to Tahir Hussain. Therefore, this case doesn't fall under the category of rarest of rare cases. Advocate Tara Narula had also argued for Tahir Hussain and submitted that he has three children, and his wife is a homemaker. His father is old-aged.
It was also submitted that he was an MCD councillor at the time of the incident. Some portion is sealed. His family is residing in the back portion. His family doesn't have any other source of income except rent of Rs. 83000.
Abdul Gaffar Khan appeared for Convicts Kasim and Nazim and submitted that there was a situation of rioting and both communities were involved. Ankit Sharma was alongwith 2-3 boys on the day of the incident. He was having a danda in his hand; there was provocation.
However, the court rejected the contention.