Relatives of two men convicted for the murder of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma said they will challenge the life sentences in the Delhi High Court.
The legal move seeks to overturn convictions linked to the 2020 Delhi riots, a series of violent clashes that resulted in numerous deaths and significant urban unrest. The appeal focuses on the assertion that the convicts had no connection to other high-profile figures involved in the violence.
The convicts, identified as Nazim and Kasim, were each sentenced to life imprisonment [1]. Their family members said they intend to appeal the verdict, maintaining that the sentences are unjust. Central to their defense is the denial of any association with Tahir Hussain, a former councillor for the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).
This case is part of a broader legal crackdown on the perpetrators of the riots. In a separate but related proceeding on July 31, 2026, Tahir Hussain and four co-convicts were also sentenced to life imprisonment [2, 3]. The court determined at that time that the specific case did not warrant the death penalty [3].
The relatives of Nazim and Kasim said they are seeking a review of the evidence used to establish links between the different groups of convicts. They argue that the association with Hussain was incorrectly attributed to their kin during the trial process.
The Delhi High Court will now determine if there are sufficient grounds to hear the appeal. The proceedings will examine whether the evidence supports the life sentences handed down to Nazim and Kasim for their roles in the death of the IB officer [1].
“Relatives of two men convicted for the murder of Intelligence Bureau officer Ankit Sharma said they will challenge the life sentences”
The attempt to decouple these convicts from Tahir Hussain suggests a legal strategy aimed at reducing the perceived severity of the conspiracy. By denying links to a political figure, the defense may be attempting to reframe the crime as an isolated act of violence rather than a coordinated political attack, which could potentially influence the High Court's view on the sentencing.
