IB staffer’s death during Delhi riots: Murder charges framed against Tahir, 10 others

Hussain’s lawyers had argued that since it was an ongoing riot and conspiracy, he can only be said to have joined the conspiracy and could not be a conspirator for killing Sharma. To this, the court said if the firing was done in pursuance to a common objective of the mob, then every member of the mob would be liable for the consequence of firing.

“What would have been the liability of this bigger mob had Ankit been fired upon and killed with a firearm by one person from this mob? The obvious answer would be that if this firing was done in pursuance to common object of mob… then every member of the mob would be liable for consequence of such firing by virtue of Section 149 IPC,” the court said.

The court observed that it was not necessary for all members of the mob to play some overt act in the killing of Sharma, and that as per evidence, the mob was acting in “well-prepared manner” to attack Hindus and their properties, signifying existence of prior meeting of their mind.

“Tahir Hussain also played the role of instigator to kill Hindus and exhorting this mob not to spare Hindus. He instigated the mob, when Ankit came forward… The conspiracy need not be specifically to kill Ankit. When accused were acting in pursuance to conspiracy and covered killing of Ankit as well for the reasons that he was killed because he was a Hindu,” the court said.

Sharma’s body was recovered from a drain in Khajuri Khas near Chand Bagh. The postmortem report revealed 51 injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons and blunt force. His father in the FIR claimed he had strong suspicion that his son was killed under orders of Hussain.