Juridical Analysis of Indictments and the Application of Law in Crime

That the Public Prosecutor in making the indictment there was a carelessness in compiling the indictment without studying or analyzing the files. or the results of an investigation or an examination report (BAP), both witnesses and documentary evidence, causing psychological pressure on the defendant, accusing an act or action that was not committed. 

In the second indictment Article 374 of the Criminal Code concerning embezzlement, as described in the indictment submitted going to court "does not meet the material requirements" as regulated in Article 143 Paragraph (2) Letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code. The public prosecutor was also unable to prove the facts and evidence in court that the defendant fulfilled the elements of the criminal act of embezzlement, so it could not be categorized as a criminal act.

As a result of the indecisiveness of the indictment, "Resulted in the defendant unable to prepare a self-defense". For example, "The Supreme Court Decision dated May 10, 1969 No. 74 / K / KR / 1973: Embezzlement (verduistering) is in principle different from deception. Therefore, the material act of the criminal act of embezzlement (verduistering) must be clearly formulated in the accusation and it is not sufficient to refer to the primal accusation. canceled. "

Of course this does not reduce the right of the defendant or legal adviser to file a rebuttal or exception as stipulated in Article 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code. in the form of an exception obscure library, without exception stating that the indictment letter is "vague" because it does not completely contain the requirements stipulated in Article 143 Paragraph (2) Letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code. "

Paying attention to the procedure for declaring an indictment null and void by law, through a trial examination process as outlined in the form of a judicial descision in the form of a verdict or ruling, so that the accuracy of the judge in examining the case in the indictment is necessary in order to provide legal certainty to ensure justice for the accused.

4. EVIDENCE

Judges in a criminal case are active, meaning that the judge is obliged to obtain sufficient evidence to prove the accusation to the accused. In seeking material truth, the criminal justice must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt). The problem of proof is very important and main, as according to Article 6 Paragraph (2) KUHAP.

In the verdict: No. 4 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN.Jkt.Utr, it cannot be proven that the defendant committed the criminal act that he was accused of.

6. VERDICT

The Court's decision is regulated in Article 1 number 11 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the decision: No. 4 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN.Jkt.Utr, the defendant is sentenced to a criminal sentence of 8 months minus the period of detention and arrest. Based on this decision, the charges of obscuur libel . 

So that in this case the judge must give a verdict stating, "The indictment is null and void because it does not comply with Article 143 Paragraph (2) Letter b of the Criminal Procedure Code and because the criminal elements are not fully fulfilled, it cannot be said that the defendant committed a criminal act as charged by the Public Prosecutor Likewise regarding Article 156 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding an authorized court, the judge must release the defendant from all charges as the first and second indictments have not been proven in order to guarantee legal certainty and provide a sense of justice for the accused and provide rehabilitation to the defendant's good name. the consequences of these provisions. "