New Delhi: On July 31, a Delhi court convicted former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor Tahir Hussain in the killing of a 27-year-old Intelligence Bureau (IB) employee Ankit Sharma during the 2020 northeast Delhi communal violence.Additional Sessions Judge Praveen Singh of the Karkardooma Court found Hussain guilty of being a member of an unlawful assembly, some of whose members killed Ankit. Hussain was sentenced to life imprisonment.While Hussain’s conviction was a “high-profile” prosecution related to the Delhi violence, the trial record raises several uncomfortable questions about how evidence was weighed, which witnesses were believed and whose testimonies were discarded.The prosecution (Delhi Police) put forward 91 witnesses in the case, but during the course of the trial, several witnesses – including Ankit’s bereaved father Ravinder Sharma, did not back the police version of events, either in full or in part.Creating a chronologyCommunal violence erupted in northeast Delhi on February 23, 2020. Fifty-three people, an overwhelming 38 of them Muslims, were killed. More than 200 people were injured in the violence. Properties worth crores were damaged in arson, mob attacks and looting that continued over days. Muslims fled the neighbourhoods in the aftermath, many never to return.Hussain himself was suspended by AAP after his name came up in relation to the Ankit case, leaving him without institutional support as he contested the 11 cases registered against him in the following months.As per the trial court’s July judgment, Ankit stepped out of his house in Khajuri Khas on the evening of February 25, 2020. His father, Ravinder Sharma, went looking for him when he did not return. One of the places Sharma visited, with police, was the house, also in Khajuri Khas, of then AAP member and well-known municipal councillor, Tahir Hussain.Also read: Delhi Riots: Court Convicts Ex-Councillor Tahir Hussain of Murdering Ankit SharmaAt 11:40 am the following morning, February 26, Sharma got a missing person’s report filed as Daily Diary Report 9A at Dayalpur police station. He did not accuse or blame Tahir Hussain in this complaint.Soon after, Sharma was told that dead bodies were being pulled out of the Jaffrabad drain atop the Chand Bagh Pulia. Around noon, Ankit’s body was fished out in his father’s presence as well as that of the Station House Officer (SHO) of Khajuri Khas police station.At 6:16 pm, Ankit was declared dead at GTB Hospital, and another Daily Diary Report (63A) was filed at Dayalpur police station.At 11:40 pm, Sharma filed Daily Diary Report 82A at Dayalpur police station. This complaint was the first one in which Hussain was named, as someone Sharma suspected was responsible for his son’s death. Its contents were later recorded in FIR No. 65/2020.Hussain’s defence pointed out during the trial that if entries 9A and 63A recorded the natural course of events on February 26, what purpose did entry 82A serve? Second, why did Sharma mention Hussain as a suspect all of a sudden in his last complaint at night, when he had not done so in the preceding 24 hours since his son went missing?Not just that. Since a missing person report had been filed, the police knew that a person named Ankit Sharma was missing in the area. It also knew that a dead body had been recovered, which had been identified by Ankit’s father and uncle by the evening of February 26.Yet police did not immediately register an FIR at the Khajuri Khas or Dayalpur police stations. Why did it wait until close to midnight when Ankit’s body had already been recovered and identified hours earlier? There are no clear answers to this and many other oddities recorded in the trial court judgment. For instace, the police did not record Sharma’s statement after the body was fished out. Nor did it record a statement of the SHO, Khajuri Khas police station, who was also present at the time.The Investigation Officer (IO) in the case, Inspector Anleshwar Rai, claimed in court that he did not believe the SHO of Khajuri Khas police station would have anything relevant to say on the matter. Therefore, his statement was not recorded.Note that the court records in its judgement that the same SHO was, at 11 pm the previous night (February 25), engaged in the search for Ankit along with Ankit’s father, until the following morning.Inspector Rai deposed that he also did not record the statements of witnesses, such as bystanders near the site of the mob violence in which Ankit died, in the first 24 hours. He said that this was because they were not ready to become witnesses.He said he did not use his powers as a police officer to compel people to give statements either.All of these, as per Hussain’s defence, pointed to a concerted effort to implicate Hussain. As per his legal team in court, the police investigation remained slow until it could put together witnesses who put him in the spotlight as a guilty person.As per the prosecution, its investigation was unencumbered by bias or premeditation.Witnesses turn hostile, make contradictory statementsThe Wire accessed the testimonies of some of the witnesses the police presented. Two witnesses, brothers Akash and Bharat, said they were present when Ankit was killed by members of a mob gathered at Chand Bagh Pulia.Akash and Bharat claimed to have witnessed Ankit’s lynching together on February 25. Yet their accounts differ. What they said in their testimonies about the timing of the mob gathering and its size kept changing. Akash, a driver, claimed he saw Hussain with a knife, while Bharat, who operated a snack cart 200 metres away from the Khajuri Khas police station, said he saw Hussain instigate a mob.Akash said a mob set fire to a nearby bakery, Bunny Bakery, and that its members also killed Ankit, at Hussain’s instigation. But Bharat does not mention the bakery that was set ablaze.Regarding the defence argument that there were discrepancies between Akash’s testimony as against that of Bharat, the court said that if there had been no variations, the defence “would have” argued that the witnesses had been tutored and planted.It attributed the discrepancies to their individual “capabilities to perceive, retain and reproduce” information.They also made changing accounts of Hussain’s alleged remarks in a mob they witnessed. The court, however, ruled that that part of their testimony was unreliable – that is, as per the ruling, Hussain did not make the communal remarks to incite the mob that these two witnesses had ascribed to him.Also read: ‘No Evidence’ to Link Former Councillor Tahir Hussain to Delhi Riots, Says CounselFurther, Bharat and Akash’s claim that they had identified three other accused, Nazim, Kasim and Sameer, was not held up. The court observed that it was “too serendipitous” that they were in the area just when the police brought these accused for separate spot visits. After all, a strict COVID-19 lockdown was in place at the time.Further, when the owners of Bunny Bakery, Vikalp Kochar and Gyanendra Kochar testified, the brothers’ claims appeared less believable.Vikalp’s testimony, reviewed by The Wire, says that a “big mob” gathered outside his bakery and caught hold of one boy, whom it was assaulting with a stick and one sharp/pointed object [nukeeli si cheez]. He says he watched this unfold over 10-15 minutes.He also says that some youngsters had entered his shop and were throwing articles out, while a fire was lit.“One boy along with 2-3 boys claiming to be belonging to IB entered into that mob. His companions were provoking him to go ahead, who were also carrying danda [sticks] in their hands. The IB guy was also carrying danda in his hand when he entered into the aforesaid mob. That IB guy was immediately…surrounded by the persons in the aforesaid mob.“Thereafter I could only see that he was being hit on his head with some danda, while he was still in standing position and he was repeatedly being stabbed with some pointed object. This continued for about 5-10 minutes and in the last 5 minutes, though I am not very sure about it, probably that IB guy had already died,” says his statement.Tahir Hussain before the arrest, in Delhi, attending a Durga Puja event, and a Valmiki Samaj event (right). Photo by arrangement.Vikalp describes how the “boys” then lifted Ankit’s body and threw him into the drain off the Chand Bagh Pulia. He shared in court that the police called him 2-3 times and came to his shop and showed him photographs of suspects.“However, I did not identify any of those photographs. Police had recorded my statement, but it contained few twists and turns and after going through the said statement, I told the police official that these do not reflect the correct situation,” Vikalp said in court, effectively turning hostile.Vikalp’s testimony notes that the mob that set his bakery on fire was the same one whose members killed Ankit, something that Bharat and Akash’s testimonies do not bear out.Further, Vikalp identifies members of the mob that killed the IB staffer, but categorically states that he did not see Hussain at the spot between 3-6 pm on February 25. He claims to have seen Hussain only after 6 pm.What is more, Hussain’s defence lawyers pointed out in court, FIR No. 114/20, registered at Khajuri Khas police station, which reports the arson attack on Bunny Bakers, does not name any of the same accused. How could this be? Most likely, this was a result of the large number of FIRs registered in the aftermath of the violence.Also read: Delhi Riots: Once Again, Court Hauls Up Police Over ‘Artificial Statements,’ Shoddy ProbeThe court also notes that Inspector Anleshwar Singh visited the spot of Ankit’s killing on February 28, three days after the incident. Yet it appears from the judgment that he did not return to his police station to file a report. Instead, he wrote the detailed chain of events only on March 6, a week later.What happened to some key witness testimoniesThe police also brought Head Constable Rahul as an eyewitness. He claimed to have seen two mobs: one of persons from the Muslim community on Chand Bagh Pulia and another of the Hindu community opposite the Pulia, the judgment records.HC Rahul claimed he saw Bunny Bakers and other shops being set on fire. He identified Hussain as a member of the mob.However, he does not explain why his statement was recorded two weeks later, on March 9, and not soon after he saw the crimes unfold and the involvement of a prominent local citizen. He said he “did not remember” whether he had informed the SHO, Dayalpur police station, that he had seen the accused named by him in the mob.“Though he had a mobile phone, on February 25, 2020, he did not call the duty officer to have an entry of the incident recorded, did not make a PCR call and he also did not take the photo or video of the incident,” the court’s judgment records.Prosecution Witness No 6, Pradeep Verma, was another eyewitness in the Ankit murder trial. But he is already a prosecution witness in 6-7 cases. Verma worked as a parking attendant at Chand Bagh Pulia. He earlier stated that he had seen Hussain in a mob.But in court, he said he had only “felt” he saw Hussain. Still later, he deposed that he had only caught a glimpse of Hussain, from behind and partially.The court ruled that Kumar’s testimony, if “wholistically [sic] seen”, supported the prosecution case “almost in its entirety, except insofar as it concerns the role of accused Tahir Hussain”.The court found that his effort to no longer implicate Hussain was “feeble and unconvincing”. It drew the inference that “he had been won over by accused Tahir Hussain” – which begs the question: could he not have earlier been ‘won over’ by the prosecution or another factor when he accused Hussain?Also read: In Move that Could Speed Up Hearings in Delhi Riots ‘Larger Conspiracy’ Case, HC Revokes Judge’s TransferThe court concluded that “this witness had placed accused Tahir Hussain in the unlawful assembly on February 25, 2020, at around 5:00 pm at Chand Bagh Pulia”.The most damning of all witness testimonies was possibly of Ravinder Sharma, Ankit’s father. In FIR No. 65/2020, Sharma said that he had a “strong suspicion” that Hussain backed the mob that was behind his son’s killing.But during the trial, when he was shown the police complaint purportedly filed by him, he said it did not bear his signatures. Whereas he always signed in Hindi, the signatures on the complaint shown to him were in English.“This fabricated complaint was made the basis of FIR and this was done because the complainant, in his original complaint, might not have named Tahir Hussain, as is visible from DD No. 9A,” argued Hussain’s advocate during the trial.Shehzad Ali, who fished out Ankit’s body, told the police that the body was found with clothes on. However, the police widely circulated the statement that Ankit Sharma was found naked.Court’s observationsThe judge responded to each of the defence allegations in the judgment. On Hussain’s behalf, it was contended that the FIR was back-dated and fabricated as it was based on DD entry no. 82A, the third complaint Anikt’s father filed with police – when two entries had already been made in the matter.In response, the court observed that if the FIR had been registered on the basis of DD entries No. 7A and 63A, then the defence “could very well have argued” that the police should have used Sharma’s statements, not those entries.Yet the judgment also states that “a possibility does arise that [Anikt’s father] may have signed some other complaint”.The judgement says that “the testimony of PW28 does create a doubt that there may have existed another statement made and signed by him, which was not made the basis of the FIR”.The court then asks, “The question, therefore, that arises is whether the possibility that the statement forming the basis of the FIR may have been fabricated is sufficient to demolish the entire prosecution case?”It then concludes that “even if an FIR is found to be fabricated, ante-dated or deliberately delayed, such a circumstance merely casts a greater responsibility upon the court to scrutinise the evidence with greater care and circumspection”.The judgment notes that “suspicion” regarding Tahir Hussain already existed and that “rumours concerning his involvement were circulating at the relevant time”.It then links Sharma and the police team’s visit to Hussain’s house the evening Ankit went missing to these alleged “rumours” and “suspicions”.The judge observes, “I am of the considered opinion that even if, for the sake of argument, the defence allegation that the FIR was ante-dated, ante-timed and fabricated is accepted, no benefit can accrue to the accused unless it is further established that such irregularity caused serious prejudice to him or resulted in a miscarriage of justice”.Recall the context of this trial. In the days after the case against Hussain was registered, not only did Hussain find himself politically isolated, but also a target. Union home minister Amit Shah and BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi had claimed that Ankit Sharma was stabbed 400 times – a claim that is patently untrue.Also read: Minor’s Death in Madhya Pradesh Falsely Attributed to Delhi Riots; Tahir Hussain BlamedFor his family, the claims amounted to sensationalising the case and tarnishing Hussain’s image.“My father was made to look like someone he is not. Even today, our Hindu neighbours ask about him and worry for us. He was made to look like a Hindu-hater. In 2017, on the request of locals, he installed CCTVs near a temple in Nehru Vihar. That is who my father is. He is a pro-people person,” Shadab Hussain, Tahir’s son, told The Wire.Tahir Hussain Celebrates Durga Puja in his neighbourhood in this undated photograph. Photo by arrangement.Says a lawyer in Delhi who has followed this most-watched case since 2020, “Since the time the first daily diary was lodged to when Hussain stepped inside court to his sentencin – it seemed as if it had been assumed he was guilty.” The lawyer did not want to be identified as they deal with Delhi violence related cases.Police investigationOn the police failing to interview possible witnesses in the first 24 hours of the body being fished out of the Jaffrabad drain, the judgment notes that “all cases of murders during the riots had to be transferred to the crime branch”.“Hence it may also be possible, that by the evening of March 27, 2020, PW46 [Inspector Hukam Singh, the first IO in the case,] might have come to know that he was not to investigate this case and therefore the laggardness,” says the judgment.The order records that Inspector Hukam Singh was not asked relevant questions about the slow progress of the case during his cross-examination by the defence.“It is entirely possible that he [Hukam Singh] may not have been able to furnish any explanation or that the explanation offered may not have been found satisfactory. Equally, it is possible that he could have satisfactorily explained the manner in which he conducted the investigation during the said period,” the court conjectures.The benefit of the doubt from the possibilities explored in the order, in which the court does not arrive at its own conclusion, goes to the prosecution.Tahir Hussain in northeast DelhiHussain’s call records reveal that he made numerous calls to the police, journalists, AAP leaders and even some BJP leaders during the violence in his neighbourhood, Khajuri Khas. He was actively seeking help, and at one point saying that people were trying to climb onto the terrace of his house with brickbats.Also read: ‘Do Mullo Ko Maara Bhai Ne’ Vs ‘Maintain Peace’: A Tale of Delhi Riots and Two WhatsApp GroupsHis advocates revealed in court that none of the people he placed calls to in those days – February 24 and 25 – were examined as witnesses by police.On this, the court agreed that Hussain had made numerous calls, but then it raised another question: “However, whether these PCR calls were made by the accused in earnest or as the news had already started circulating about his terrace being used by the rioters, this was a ploy to set up defence for the future?”The court held that if the prosecution did not call these people, then Hussain’s legal team could have.The defence’s explanation was that Hussain also received calls during this period, indicating that he was actively communicating with people. Were those calling Hussain also participating in a “ploy”?Further, Hussain stressed that he was rescued, along with his family, on the intervening night of February 24 and 25 by officers of the Khajuri Khas police station – whose officers were engaged in finding Ankit’s body the following night.The police later retracted the claim it had conducted this rescue, calling it a mistake.Hussain has challenged his conviction and life imprisonment before the Delhi high court. A bench of justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan has sought the Delhi Police’s response and fixed December 2 as the date for the next hearing.