Judge To Gaga Muhammad: The Accident Started With Drunk, Drinking Alcohol That Is Not In Accordance With Religious Teachings

JAKARTA - The panel of judges hopes that Gaga Muhammad's 4.5-year prison sentence can be a momentum for the traffic accident defendant to become a person who behaves better.

In his judgment, the judge firmly said that the traffic accident that left the celebrity Laura Anna seriously injured -- and eventually died -- started with drunkenness.

"The crime was initiated by being drunk and drinking alcohol that is not in accordance with the religious teachings," said Judge Lingga at the East Jakarta District Court, Thursday, January 19.

The panel of judges at the East Jakarta District Court insinuated that the defendant Gaga Muhammad had said he was sorry for the accident on the Laura Anna program. Gaga's remorse was deemed inconsistent during the trial.

The panel of judges led by Lingga Setiawan has sentenced him to four years and six months in prison for the celebgram accident case. Gaga was also added to a fine of Rp. 10 million with a subsidiary of two months and less in prison.

"The sentence is imprisonment for four years and six months," said Judge Lingga at the East Jakarta District Court, Thursday, January 19.

Before imposing a sentence, the panel of judges explained a number of considerations on which they made their decision.

In their consideration, the panel of judges said that the defendant Gaga had indeed expressed her regret and feelings of guilt related to a traffic accident that left Laura Anna seriously injured. As we know, Laura Anna finally died while the trial was still going on.

But the confession of guilt is considered contrary to what happened at the trial. The judge at that time used the inconsistent word Gaga Muhammad.

"The defendant did not show any guilt. The defendant even tried to divert the element of negligence and negligence in this accident and the serious injury caused by the victim was part of the victim's own fault for not wearing the correct seat belt," explained the judge.

"The defendant also did not provide any material assistance or in good faith to help the victim's family, so the victim's family ultimately demanded compensation for the loss," the judge said.