Death penalty for 2003 Mumbai bombers

By Phil Hazlewood in Mumbai

Agence France-Presse

August 06, 2009 05:15pm


Fahmeeda Sayyed
Bombings ... Fahmeeda Sayyed, pictured, her husband and another terrorist have been sentenced to death / AFP

   * Impassive as sentences handed down
   * "Rarest of rare" category of crimes
   * Will appeal death sentence

AN Indian court has sentenced to death three people, including a married couple, for planting bombs that killed 52 in the city of Mumbai in 2003.

Judge M R Puranik, sitting at a special anti-terrorism court, ordered that Haneef Sayyed, his wife Fahmeeda Sayyed, and Ashrat Ansari "should be hanged by the neck until dead" for murder, criminal conspiracy and terrorism.

All three were convicted last week, six years after bombs exploded at the Gateway of India monument and in the Zaveri Bazaar jewellery quarter.

They stood impassive in the dock as the sentences were handed down.

Their lawyers have indicated that they will appeal against the death penalty, which is given rarely in India and is often delayed indefinitely or commuted by the president.

The court had heard the blasts were carried out in retaliation for Hindu atrocities against Muslims during riots in western Gujarat state in 2002 and the trio claimed to be members of the so-called "Gujarat Muslim Revenge Force".
Related Coverage

   * Mumbai terror trial adjournedThe Australian, 21 Jul 2009
   * Mumbai suspect admits his guiltThe Australian, 21 Jul 2009
   * Man pleads guilty to Mumbai attacksThe Australian, 20 Jul 2009
   * Bid to try gunman for 166 murdersThe Australian, 18 Apr 2009
   * Mumbai accused retracts confessionNEWS.com.au, 17 Apr 2009

add news.com.au to iGoogle

Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam also said they were members of the banned, Pakistan-based Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba. This group was also allegedly behind last year's militant attacks in Mumbai that killed 166 people.

Haneef Sayyed's lawyer had argued that his client should be sent to prison for life without parole.

Fahmeeda Sayyed's lawyers also argued against the death penalty, saying she was a poor, uneducated woman. They said she was pressured out of Muslim duty into committing the crime by her husband and was taken along to "camouflage" the group's intentions.

Ansari's lawyer Sushan Kunjuramaran made no submissions but the convicted bomber told the judge he did not agree with the verdict.

Prosecutor Nikam rejected the defence arguments, saying the offences fell into the "rarest of rare" category of crimes deemed appropriate for a judge to pass the death sentence.

The meticulously planned and executed bombings, carried out by planting high-explosive devices in the boots of taxis, were of "extreme brutality" and led to the "massacre of innocent people", he told the court.

"It would be a mockery of justice if the death penalty is not imposed," he said.

The trial was the biggest anti-terrorism case in the city since the 1993 "Black Friday" bombings in which 257 people were killed and at least 800 others were injured.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25892168-401,00.html

No matter why they did what they did, I agree with the judgment, for this reason.


Quote:

..........saying the offences fell into the "rarest of rare" category of crimes deemed appropriate for a judge to pass the death sentence. The meticulously planned and executed bombings, carried out by planting high-explosive devices in the boots of taxis, were of "extreme brutality" and led to the "massacre of innocent people", he told the court. "It would be a mockery of justice if the death penalty is not imposed," he said...........

If not for a meticulously planned and executed bombing that kills many innocent people, then there is not death penalty ever.
Which is fine by me.