Novel Disclosures About Grievances During The Trial Process

JAKARTA - Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) senior investigator Novel Baswedan revealed that there were irregularities during the trial process in the case of sprinkling hard water that happened to him. This is because not all key witnesses were presented by the Public Prosecutor (JPU).

As a result, said Novel, the prosecutor's charges against the two defendants were quite light. Namely the demand for one year in prison for acts allegedly committed by Rahmat Kadir Mahulette and Rony Bugis.

"The trial process, I see more and more irregularities, among which are key witnesses who knew the events at the time of the incident and before the incident were not examined. Only some of the witnesses at the time of the incident and after the incident were examined," Novel said in a discussion with the theme 'Measuring Claims Prosecutors in Novel Baswedan 'Case via Youtube, Monday, June 15.

Initially, he still thought positively about the proceedings of this case. Until, on the next occasion, he gave information related to this case at trial.

Finally, what was felt was conveyed in the trial. Not only witnesses who have not been presented, Novel also said there was other evidence that was not included in the case file.

So, Novel asked the prosecutor to examine the witness and evidence. However, until the trial process of the charges, statements and requests to examine witnesses and evidence were not accommodated.

"This made me suspicious. We wondered whether the prosecutor really didn't understand or was overlooked or maybe it was on purpose?" said the novel.

Then, Novel also had discussions with investigators regarding the articles that were suspected of the two defendants. Initially, investigators used Article 170 of the Criminal Code regarding subsidiary violence to Article 351 of the Criminal Code concerning persecution.

According to him, the use of the Article was inappropriate. Because, in this case only one person did the watering. Referring to the definition of Article 170 of the Criminal Code, the rule is more about beatings that are carried out jointly. So, if they continue to use the Article, the two defendants have the potential to escape legal punishment.

For this reason, Novel also had time to provide input to investigators to replace the alleged article with Article 340 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 53 concerning attempted murder as the primary article. Then, for the subsidiary article, article 355 paragraph 2 juncto 356 concerning serious persecution.

By using this Article, the actions of the defendants which are said to be a criminal act of maltreatment will be categorized as serious. This is because the persecution was planned and resulted in serious injuries.

"If it is referred to as persecution, that is the most complete persecution, namely persecution that is planned serious persecution resulting in serious injuries and torture with weight because I as an apparatus working in this case is the law enforcement apparatus at the KPK," said Novel.

Meanwhile, Ronny Bugis and Rahmat Kadir Mahulette are charged with using subsidiary charges, namely Article 353 paragraph (2) KUHP Juncto Article 55 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code regarding maltreatment with a plan that carries a maximum sentence of seven years. The prosecutor did not use the primary indictment, namely Article 355 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code concerning serious maltreatment with a plan that carries a sentence of 12 years, because he considers it not proven.

Meanwhile, Novel Baswedan's attorney for law, Asfinawati said, the charges against the two defendants were very light when compared to the charges in similar cases.

Referring to the data it has, a similar case demands more than one year. For example, in the case of watering that occurred in Mojokerto in 2017, the defendant Lamaji was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Until finally, he was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Then in 2020 a man named Herianto pouring hard water on his dead wife was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

"This case shows that there are extraordinary disparities. But not only is it unusual if the demands of 10 years 12 years are only one or two, so maybe there are still alibis that can be issued by the Prosecutor's Office, but because there are many, we need to question them again," he said. Asfinawati.

In addition, when talking about prosecution, said Asfinawati, one must refer to the criminal framework. This means seeing whether the actions of the defendants constitute an organized crime or not.

From his glasses, the crimes of the two defendants had fulfilled the planned or organized elements. This is because, if you look far back before the attack, the defendant had lurked and prepared everything needed to do the watering.

"In this preparation, in the Novel case there was planning, there was a search for a team in our investigation, there were surveillance of many witnesses around Novel's house and looking for their tools," said Asfinawati.