Circumstantial Evidence in the Perspective of Criminal Procedure Law

Authors

  • Satria Ardyrespati Wicaksana Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya
  • Erny Herlin Setyorini Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37010/lit.v6i1.1561

Keywords:

indirect evidence, circumstantial evidence, KUHAP

Abstract

A judge in imposing criminal sanctions against a defendant will always use the provisions of Article 183 of the KUHAP as a guide. This provision essentially stipulates that the judge in sentencing must be based on a minimum of 2 (two) valid and convincing pieces of evidence that the defendant has committed a criminal act. In the provisions of Article 184 of the KUHAP, it regulates 5 (five) pieces of evidence, namely: a). Witness Statement; b). Expert Statement; c). Letter; d). Instruction; e). Defendant's statement. However, in the Central Jakarta District Court Decision Number: 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.Jkt.Pst, the judge used circumstantial evidence which is not regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code. In accordance with this description, the researcher is interested in conducting research with the title "Indirect Evidence (Circumstantial Evidence) in the Perspective of Criminal Law" with the formulation of the problem of the Position of indirect evidence (circumstantial evidence) in the perspective of criminal procedural law and the Ratio decidendi of the Decision of the Central Jakarta District Court No. 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.Jkt.Pst regarding circumstantial evidence. This research aims to explain and analyze the position of circumstantial evidence in the perspective of criminal procedural law, as well as explain and analyze the ratio decidendi of the Decision of the Central Jakarta District Court No. 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.Jkt.Pst regarding circumstantial evidence. The research method used is normative with statutory, conceptual and case approaches. The results of this research indicate that circumstantial evidence is not regulated in the KUHAP. The use of indirect evidence (circumstantial evidence) is based on a doctrine that is in fact contrary to the KUHAP and the principles of criminal law and has a big risk of deviating from the legal aim of realizing legal certainty.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aminah, S. (2022). Kedudukan bukti tidak langsung (Indirect Evidence) dalam penyelesaian praktik kartel di Indonesia. Dharmasisya Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia, 2(3).

Fuady, M. (2012). Teori hukum pembuktian pidana dan perdata. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Garner, B. A. (2009). Black's law dictionary. New York: West.

Hayy Nasution, A. (2022). Analysis of The Criminal Elements of Forgery Article 263 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code JO Article 55 Paragraph (1) 1st of the Criminal Code inCovid-19 Free Certificate. LITERATUS, 4(2), 582–580. https://doi.org/10.37010/lit.v4i2.846

Hiariej, E. O. (2012). Teori dan hukum pembuktian. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Indriani. (2018). Bukti tidak langsung (circumstantial evidence) dalam perkara kartel sepeda motor matik Yamaha dan Honda (analisis Putusan Nomor 04/KPPU-I/2016). Jakarta: Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah.

Lintogareng, J. V. (2013). Analisa keyakinan hakim dalam pengambilan keputusan perkara pidana di pengadilan. Lex Crimen, 2(3), 24-35.

Mardhatillah, A. B., & Mahyani, A. (2019). Bukti tidak langsung sebagai dasar hakim menjatuhkan pidana (Putusan Nomor: 777/Pid.B/2016/PN.JKT.PST). Mimbar Keadilan, 12(1), 59-66.

Momuat, O. M. (2014). Alat bukti tulisan dalam pemeriksaan . Lex Privatum, 2(1), 134-143.

Newman, J. O. (2019). Taking “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Seriously. Judicature, 103(2).

Pettanasse, S., & Sulastri, S. (2016). Hukum acara pidana. Palembang: UNSRI.

Pramudi, T. W., Noviyanto, I., & Harjati, E. (2015). Implikasi yuridis mengenai saksi dan keterangan saksi dalam perkara pidana setelah Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 65/PUU-VII/2010. urnal Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya.

Routledge. (2010). Evidence lawcards 2010-2011. London: Routledge.

Saktia, M. P. (2013). Implikasi Yudiris perluasan definisi saksi dan keterangan berdasarkan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 65/PUU-VII/2010. Jurnal Verstek, 1(3), 45-56. doi:DOI: https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v1i3.38819

Sasangka, H., & Rosita, L. (2009). Hukum pembuktian dalam perkara pidana. Bandung: Mandar Maju.

Sholeh, I., Danang, S., & Saputra, H. (2015). Penggunaan asa In Dubio Pro Reo oleh terdakwa sebagai dasar pengajuan kasasi terhadap putusan pengadilan tinggi dalam perkara surat palsu (Studi Putusan Mahkama Agung Nomor: 2175/K/Pid/2007). GEMA, 27(50).

Sidharta, B. A. (2008). Pengantar logika : sebuah langkah pertama pengenalan medan telaah. Bandung: Refika Aditama.

Tajudin, J., Rahmadani, R. H., & Zahra, A. A. (2020). Pembentukan keyakinan hakim dalam perkara pidana di lingkungan pengadilan Jawa Barat. ARENA HUKUM, 13(2), 348-368. doi:DOI: https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.arenahukum.2020.01302.9

Zega, I. G., & Toha, K. (2012). Tinjauan mengenai indirect evidence (bukti tidak langsung) sebagai alat bukti dalam kasus dugaan kartel surcharge maskapai penerbangan di Indonesia. Depok: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.

Downloads

Published

2024-04-15

How to Cite

Wicaksana, S. A., & Setyorini, E. H. (2024). Circumstantial Evidence in the Perspective of Criminal Procedure Law. LITERATUS, 6(1), 109–117. https://doi.org/10.37010/lit.v6i1.1561
Abstract viewed = 29 times