Anand Krishna’s case continues to roll like a ball and it has revealed the disgrace of the witnesses and the authority who has been dealing with this case. Since the beginning, this case is full of irregularities and fabrication which caused the impeachment of Chief Judge Hari Sasangka from this case because he had a secret meeting with a victim witness Shinta Kencana Kheng in the car at night. This case has been taken over and lead by Judge Albertina Ho.
Judge Albertina Ho decided to repeat the trial by calling the main witnesses in order to have a fair trial. However, the Public Prosecutor Martha Berliana Tobing objected with the reason of the manifestation of an economical and effective trial. Strangely enough it is the Prosecutor Martha Berliana Tobing who keeps delaying the trial proceedings, that up until it was the time to read the demand she continued buying more time.
Anand Krishna’s Legal Counselor, Dwi Ria Latifa SH disclosed, “There is something peculiar about the behavior of Martha Berliana Tobing during her role as the Public Prosecutor in the Case of Anand Krishna. The Prosecutor Martha Berliana Tobing often asks questions which are not relevant at all with the indictment so that Judge Albertina Ho frequently declares that the questions asked are irrelevant.
Dwi Ria Latifa SH also added, “There are 7 irregularities which happened during Martha Berliana Tobing’s role as the Prosecutor and some of them violated human rights severely.”
The irregularities intended by Dwi Ria Latifa SH are: 1. The order to remove the intravenous medication and the forced return of Anand Krishna to Cipinang Detention Center which caused the defendant’s blood sugar level to drop dramatically to 64 and suffer a “light stroke” and “hypoglycemia” in the next 48 hours. It is not only unprofessional but also violating the ethics of the Adhyaksa corps to always perform duties based on Trikrama Adhyaksa: Satya Adhi Wicaksana. It’s also a very serious and severe violation of human rights 2. Some of the witnesses presented in court also acknowledged the fundraising and coordination of certain parties before the case was reported to the police. They mentioned the names of Muhammad Djumat Abrory Djabbar and Shinta Kencana Kheng as the party that facilitated and coordinated them. In the meanwhile Shinta Kencana Kheng allegedly was involved in the violation of judges’ code of ethics perpetrated by the previous Chief of Judge Hari Sasangka. They were seen to spend some time together in a car at night in a quiet place. This case is still being handled of the Judicial Commission (KY) and the Supreme Court (MA).
3. The Prosecutor is not careful in presenting the credible witnesses who would support the articles that were charged against the defendant. Witnesses presented should be significant in conjunction with section 64 (actions repeated on one subject), rather than Article 65.
4. The prosecuting witness’ photocopies of the doctor’s report dated March 3, 2010, at 15:40 P. M. from Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, signed by Dr. Abd Mun’im Idris states that there is no sign of sexual violence and intercourse, even the hymen of the victim who reported the sexual harassment is still intact.
5. The appearance of anew witness who was not mentioned in the investigation report namely Guntur Tompubolon. He testified in other cases which were reported to the police in Depok and it was not proven, so the case is dismissed (SP3). But during Guntur Tompubolon’s examination, subjectively Judge Hari Sasangka at that time seemed to justify the testimony of the witness. 6. The emergence of some new evidence not mentioned in the list of evidence seized by police, in the form of a necklace and a few photos glued on a piece of paper. On the re-trial, the new evidence was gone without any explanation.
7. The use of repulsive words against the defendant, and the questions considered irrelevant to the indictment. The irrelevant questions intended are the questions asked to the defendant or to other witnesses, particularly the three people that were presented by the prosecutor Martha Berliana. All the three witnesses later denied the allegations declared by the prosecuting witness.
