KARACHI, Feb 12: Three accused, one of them a son of a senior superintendent of police and another of a district nazim, were condemned to death on Thursday by an anti-terrorism court for kidnapping a man for Rs7 million ransom.

Judge Haq Nawaz Baloch of the ATC-5 also ordered confiscation of properties of Asif Hussain Junejo, son of SSP Mumtaz Junejo, his cousin Salahuddin alias Alauddin, son of Sanghar District Nazim Roshan Din Junejo, and Rustum Haider, an Iranian Baloch.

The case pertained to the kidnapping of a 20-year-old man, who remained captive for 52 days and was released after the payment of Rs7 million in ransom.

Rustum was arrested on November 1, on a tip-off in the Sachal police limits, and the two Junejos were arrested on his lead in the Darakhshan police limits. Five other accused - Natasha alias Sonia, Zeeshan alias Burger, Abu Sufiyan, Haji Mashooq Brohi, and Rafique Jatt, son of Dawood Jatt - have been absconding.

Syed Raza Abbas Zaidi was kidnapped on Aug 30 near Country Club Apartments, Sea View, where he had gone to meet Natasha on her request. The woman had called the victim on his mobile phone. The next day, the victim's maternal uncle, Mansoor Javed, lodged a FIR against unknown kidnappers with the Darakhshan police.

Rustum and an absconding accused kidnapped Raza at gunpoint as he waited for the woman. The kidnappers also took away the victim's car, which they later abandoned in the limits of the Buffer Zone police.

The two kidnappers later handed over the victim to the other accused persons. The kidnapper initially demanded Rs100 million in ransom for the release of Raza. However, they agreed to release him for a ransom of Rs7 million after a series of negotiations with the family.

The ransom money was handed over to Rustum by the victim's family driver, Zubair, and his friend Mohammed Irfan, who both identified Rustum during an identification parade before a judicial magistrate as well as in the trial court.

According to Irfan, he gave the money bag to Rustum, who was on a motorbike. The accused took the bag to a car parked at a little distance and occupied by Asif Junejo and Salahuddin Junejo. He handed over the bag to the Junejos, who went away in their car.

Special public prosecutor Mazhar Qayyum examined in all 13 prosecution witnesses, including victim Zaidi, who identified Rustum as one of the kidnappers.

Besides the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution also placed on record Rs400,000, seized from the bedroom of Asif Junejo, and audio-cassettes containing the conversation between the victim's family and the kidnappers.

The two accused Junejos took defence plea that they were implicated in the case due to enmity with the local police. According to Asif Junejo, the police did not seize the money from his house, and instead withdrew the amount from his account.

He also produced a police constable as defence witness, who deposed that he had been posted as guard at the house of SSP Mumtaz Junejo for the last three years. The defence witness also deposed that no police party had raided the SSP's house to seize the money.

"PC Bahadur deposed that he was serving as guard and he had produced certificate issued by SP SRP GB-II, Karachi, dated 27-1-2004 in which he is shown to be working as gunman with SSP Mumtaz Hussain Junejo. There is a lot of difference in guard and gunman.

Suffice to say that SSP Mumtaz Junejo has been posted at Hyderabad for the last two or three years and he has been provided official residence there, as such the gunman should have been with the SSP and not in his bungalow at Karachi", the judge observed.

Salahuddin took alibi plea for his defence and produced a doctor as defence witness. He said on Oct 21, 2003 he fell ill as he was returning to his village. He said his uncle Muhammed Khan took him to a nearby Basic Health Unit, where Dr Ali Mohammed admitted and treated him.

The judge remarked: "Accused Salahuddin has taken plea of alibi, which was not taken by him at the earlier stage in as much as the bail application. This strange plea taken for the first time in the statement of the accused u/s 342 CrPC carries no weight in the eye of law".

The judge also observed: "It has been held by a division bench of the Honourable Supreme court of Pakistan in the case of Hasanullah vs state, reported in 1999 MLD 514 (b), reported in 1999 ALD 2731, that work of culprits in cases of abduction for ransom is mostly divided and pre-planned - Abduction is done by some of the culprits, place of confinement is guarded by others and ransom is extorted by one or two of them -- Object of all the culprits being to extort money, punishment could be the same irrespective of the role played by each of them".

He further remarked: "The defence has not been able to prove enmity of the victim family with the accused persons and in these circumstance what could be gathered from the prosecution evidence is that the instant offence was committed by the accused persons for the purpose of ransom in order to create sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the victim, his parents, relatives, friends and the inhabitants of that locality and this act of the accused persons is a clear-cut act of terrorism and nothing else".

The judge also sentenced the three accused to a three-year term for keeping the victim hostage. They were fined Rs10,000 each and the defaulter on the payment would have to undergo an additional three-month term.