- Five accused, including Tahir Hussain, convicted in Ankit Sharma murder.
- Court relied on 91 witnesses, scientific and electronic evidence.
- Sentencing for the convicts scheduled for July 23 by Karkardooma Court.
Delhi's Karkardooma Court has fixed July 23 for the announcement of the sentence to five convicts in the murder of IB official Ankit Sharma, including former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain.
The court convicted the accused on Monday. In its 320-page verdict, the court clarified that the conviction was not based on a single witness or evidence, but based on 91 witnesses presented by the prosecution, eyewitness statements, scientific and electronic evidence, post-mortem and FSL reports, video footage, call detail records (CDRs) and a whole range of circumstantial evidence.
The court added that the prosecution presented a chain of events, linking various types of evidence with each other. This established the entire chain of murder of Ankit Sharma.
Eyewitness, police testimonies, scientific evidence corroborate each other
Eyewitness accounts, police officer testimony, medical and forensic evidence, and electronic records were examined individually and collectively. They all were found to corroborate each other.
Based on this, the court held that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
The verdict also detailed the testimony of eyewitnesses present near the Chandbagh culvert. The court stated that the witnesses' accounts of the violence, the mob, and the attack on Ankit Sharma matched the video footage, medical reports, and other documentary evidence.
According to the court, the witnesses' statements contained substantial similarities regarding the basic facts of the incident, strengthening the prosecution's case.
The court also clarified that minor differences in the statements of different witnesses are natural in extraordinary circumstances such as riots. Such minor contradictions alone cannot be used to render the entire testimony unreliable.
Citing various Supreme Court judgments, the judgment said that if the basic structure of the testimony is reliable and is supported by independent evidence, minor discrepancies do not hinder conviction.
What made the prosecution's case strong
Relying on scientific evidence, the court cited the FSL report, post-mortem report, evidence collected from the scene, electronic records, mobile phone CDRs, location information, and other digital material. The court also considered the testimony of doctors, forensic experts, investigating officers, and nodal officers of mobile companies to be credible.
During the hearing, the defence questioned the credibility of witnesses, their identities, the delay in filing the FIR, the fairness of the investigation, and the electronic evidence. After considering all these arguments, the court held that the entire array of available evidence strengthens the prosecution's case.
ALSO READ: 2020 Delhi Riots: Delhi Court Rejects Activist Umar Khalid’s Interim Bail Plea Amid Mother’s Surgery
The case is proved beyond reasonable doubt not by isolating any one witness or fact but by evaluating all the evidence as a whole.
According to the court, the prosecution presented a total of 91 witnesses, including eyewitnesses, police officers, doctors, forensic experts, investigating officers, nodal officers from mobile companies, and other official witnesses. Based on these witnesses and scientific evidence, the court convicted the five accused.
Now, on July 23, the court will pronounce its verdict on the sentence after hearing the arguments of the prosecution and the defence on the point of sentence.