Shooting Vocational High School Students To Death, Aipda Robig Zaenudin Sentenced To 15 Years In Prison Fines IDR 200 Million

A member of the Semarang Polrestabes Aipda Robig Zaenudin, a defendant in the alleged shooting case that killed a student at SMKN 4 Semarang (ANTARA / IC Senjaya)

Semarang - Semarang Police Member, Aipda Robig Zaenudin, was sentenced to 15 years in prison in the shooting case that killed a student at SMKN 4 Semarang with the initials GRO.

The verdict was read out by Chief Justice Mira Sendang Sari during a trial at the Semarang District Court, Friday, August 8, 2025. The verdict is in accordance with the demands of the public prosecutor.

In addition to imprisonment, Aipda Robig was also sentenced to a fine of Rp. 200 million. If not paid, the fine will be replaced with imprisonment for one month.

"To declare the defendant guilty of violating Article 80 paragraph (3) and (1) of Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Child Protection," Judge Mira said in the trial quoted from Antara.

In its ruling, the panel of judges stated that the defendant was proven to have committed violence against children which resulted in death and injury.

The shooting incident occurred on Thursday, November 23, 2024, on Jalan Candi Penataran Raya, Semarang City. At that time, the defendant passed and passed by a group of motorbike riders who were chasing each other while carrying sharp weapons.

One of the motorbikes from the group is said to have grabbed Aipda Robig's vehicle which came from the opposite direction. Feeling threatened, the defendant then took out a firearm and ordered the group to stop.

He then fired a warning shot and three shots at the group. One bullet hit the GRO victim's groin causing death. Two other victims, with the initials S and A, also suffered gunshot wounds to the chest and left hand.

However, in their consideration, the panel of judges rejected the pretext of defending the defendant who claimed to have shot because he felt threatened. The judge considered that there was no evidence that the defendant was threatened with a sharp weapon at the time of the incident.

"The defendant's actions cannot be categorized as an effort to defend himself because there is no real threat to him or the community," said the judge.

The panel also considered that the defendant's actions were not in accordance with the procedures for using force by members of the National Police. In addition, the act is considered to have tarnished the image of the police institution.

Based on this decision, both the prosecutor and the defendant stated that they were still thinking about it.