IB staffer’s murder: Two brothers challenge conviction on sole witness testimony

Two brothers sentenced to life for Ankit Sharma’s murder during the 2020 riots argued that the trial court relied on a sole witness despite no Test Identification Parade being held and inconsistencies in his identification.

3 min readNew DelhiAug 12, 2026 04:33 PM IST

Ex-IB staffer Ankit Sharma's photo at his family home

Two brothers sentenced to life for the murder of Intelligence Bureau (IB) staffer Ankit Sharma during the 2020 Northeast Delhi riots have filed appeals before the Delhi High Court, questioning the trial court’s reliance on the testimony of a single witness.

Nazim and Kasim’s appeals point to the testimony of public witness (PW-6) Pradeep Verma, which the trial court relied on despite no Test Identification Parade (TIP) being held. TIP is a procedure to identify an accused under the supervision of a magistrate.

The same testimony was also relied on to convict five accused and acquit five others, they said.

A bench of Justices Prathiba Singh and Vikas Mahajan Wednesday issued notice seeking the prosecution’s response to their appeals, filed through advocate Bilal Anwar Khan. The case will next be heard on December 2.

The state counsel said it is also in the process of challenging the acquittal of six other accused.

Also Read | ‘Targeted for being Hindu’: Intelligence Bureau staffer’s family after Delhi riots verdict

On July 31, a Delhi trial court sentenced former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain and four others in the case.

Nazim and Kasim were accused of allegedly being part of the group that had dragged Sharma. They were arrested from Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, on March 30, 2020. A knife was allegedly recovered from Nazim.

Story continues below this ad

The two were convicted of rioting and murder. Both were acquitted of criminal conspiracy charges; Nazim was also acquitted for the charge of being in unlawful possession of firearms under the Arms Act.

Curious case of the sole public witness

Verma, who ran a parking lot in Khajuri Khas, claimed to have witnessed rioting in the area on February 25, 2020, when Sharma was killed. His body was recovered from a drain in Dayalpur, which bore over 50 stab wounds.

The defence had argued before the trial court that Verma was running an illegal parking lot and was under police pressure to depose falsely. Verma had denied the allegation.

Also Read | In 17 of 93 acquittals in Delhi riots cases, courts red-flag ‘fabricated’ evidence, pull up police

The trial court found Verma credible despite him being cited as a witness in nine other riot-related FIRs. It relied on his testimony to convict four accused, but did not rely on it to convict two others, who were acquitted.

Story continues below this ad

What the appeals state

The trial court relied on Verma’s identification of Nazim and Kasim in police custody, rather than judicial custody, as members of the mob, despite him having mistakenly identified another accused, Haseen, as Nazim. Haseen was acquitted.

In their appeals, the brothers pointed out that Verma did not name them in his March 11, 2020, statement to the investigating officer. It was only on the day of their arrest that he identified them from photographs in the presence of police.

They argued that his testimony contains contradictions.

Nazim and Kasim, in their appeals, also highlighted that the trial court deviated from the principle of parity. It said the court discriminated against them by relying on the same witness to acquit some others — who Verma alleged were part of the mob — and convict them.

Sohini Ghosh

Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More

Loading Recommendations...

Sep 07: Latest News

Live Blog