Delhi riots: Ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain gets 2 years in jail

A Delhi court sentenced former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain to two years rigorous imprisonment in a 2020 Delhi riots case. The court noted his position and use of his house to facilitate violence as significant aggravating circumstances.

Observing that “the hand that guides is as guilty, if not more, as the hand that acts,” a Delhi court has sentenced former AAP councillor Tahir Hussain to two years of rigorous imprisonment in a case relating to the February 2020 Northeast Delhi riots, holding that his position as an elected public representative and the use of his house to facilitate the violence were significant aggravating circumstances.Additional Sessions Judge Parveen Singh of Karkardooma Courts also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on Hussain after observing that the aggravating circumstances substantially outweighed the mitigating circumstances put forward by the defence.

Court's Observation on Aggravating Circumstances

The court, in its October 16 sentencing order, said Hussain was expected to act as a restraining influence during the communally charged atmosphere and work towards maintaining peace and harmony. Instead, it observed, he was found guilty of abetting the riots by providing his house, described as the highest point in the locality, as a place from where rioters could attack people and damage property.“Thus, a position which ought to have been used to prevent violence was, in the present case, found to have been used in a manner which facilitated it,” the court said, adding that this conduct called for a sentence reflecting the gravity of the offence and serving as a deterrent.Hussain was convicted on October 10 for offences punishable under Section 147 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to rioting and abetment. The sentencing order concerns FIR No. 120/2020 registered at Dayalpur police station.

Prosecution and Defence Arguments

The prosecution had sought the maximum punishment available under the law, arguing that Hussain’s conviction in another riot case made him a repeat offender. It also contended that his house had served as an epicentre of the violence in the Khajuri Khas and Karawal Nagar Road areas and provided rioters with a vantage point to attack members of the public. The prosecution further argued that Hussain, being an elected public representative at the relevant time, had a responsibility to prevent violence rather than facilitate it.Opposing the demand for a stringent sentence, Hussain’s counsel argued that he had not been convicted on the basis of Section 149 IPC and was not found to have physically participated in the rioting mob. The defence maintained that no overt act by Hussain had been established and that he had consistently claimed that the rioters forcibly occupied his house. His counsel also submitted that Hussain had made PCR calls during the incident and argued that his conviction was based on facilitation rather than intentional assistance to the rioters, urging the court to take a lenient view.

Court Rejects Defence Pleas

Rejecting these submissions as grounds for reducing the sentence, the court said the absence of physical participation in the mob, by itself, could not substantially diminish the gravity of the offence for which Hussain had been convicted. “The mere fact that the prosecution did not prove the active participation of the convict in the riot, does not dilute the gravity of his conduct,” the court observed.The judge also declined to accept Hussain’s plea of helplessness as an established mitigating circumstance, noting that although he had chosen to lead evidence, he neither proved the alleged PCR calls nor produced other evidence to substantiate his defence. The court further noted that, when specifically asked whether Hussain had lodged a complaint against any known or unknown persons alleging that his house had been forcibly occupied and used for rioting and stone-pelting, the answer was in the negative.While clarifying that this circumstance did not conclusively establish that the house had not been forcibly occupied, the court said it reflected on Hussain’s subsequent conduct and found no material on record to accept the plea as a mitigating circumstance. The court also rejected the argument that the absence of an intention to aid the rioters could be inferred from the fact that the conviction concerned facilitation. It observed that the mere use of the term “facilitation” did not negate the requisite intention, adding that such conduct could not, by itself, reduce culpability.

Sentence and Final Order

The sentencing order also records that a socioeconomic report submitted to the court stated that Hussain had studied up to Class 10, was married and had four dependent family members. His monthly income was estimated at approximately Rs 2 lakh. The report also referred to his previous involvement in nine cases.Concluding that the mitigating circumstances urged by the defence had not been established, the court held that the aggravating circumstances substantially outweighed them and that no mitigating factor of sufficient weight justified a lesser sentence.The court accordingly sentenced Hussain to two years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 10,000. It directed that, in default of payment of the fine, he would undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. The order also granted him the benefit of the applicable set-off provision for the period already spent in custody, subject to law. (ANI)(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)