Prosecutor Responds To Defendant Hendra Kurniawan And Irfan Widyanto Today

Hendra Kurniawan (right)/DOC PHOTO: Rizky Adytia-VOI

JAKARTA - The six defendants in the case of obstruction of justice or obstruction of justice in the death of Yosua Hutabarat alias Brigadier J will undergo a follow-up trial today. The defendant will listen to the response or replica from the public prosecutor (JPU) on the defense note.

"Yes, a replica trial of the public prosecutor," said South Jakarta District Court Public Relations official, Djuyamto when confirmed, Monday, February 6.

The defendants are Hendra Kurniawan, Agus Nurpatria, Arif Rachman Arifin, Baiquni Wibowo, Chuck Putranto and Irfan Widyanto.

In this case, the prosecutor assessed that the defendants were legally and convincingly involved in obstructing the investigation into the murder of Brigadier J.

They were involved in destroying the DVR CCTV evidence at the security post at the Police complex, Duren Tiga, South Jakarta. In fact, the surveillance camera is one of the key pieces of evidence in uncovering the cause of Brigadier J's death.

For Hendra Kurniawan and Agus Nurpatria, the role was to order the removal and replacement of the CCTV DVR. They were demanded 3 years in prison and a fine of IDR 20 million.

Then, Baiquni Wibowo played the role of copying the CCTV DVR. Chuck Putranto is said to have ordered Irfan Widyanto to provide the surveillance camera DVR that had been taken.

With such a role, both of them were demanded 2 years in prison and a fine of IDR 10 million.

Meanwhile, Arif Rachman is said to have played a role in destroying a laptop containing a copy of CCTV footage showing Brigadier J's seconds before being executed.

Finally, for Irfan Widyanto, he took the role of taking the CCTV DVR at the security post at the Police Complex, Duren Tiga, South Jakarta. This was done on the orders of the defendant Agus Nurpatria.

In this case, Arif Rachman and Irfan Widyanto were prosecuted for 1 year in prison and a fine of IDRa 10 million.

The charges against the defendants are because they are believed to have violated Article 49 in conjunction with Article 33 of Law Number 19 of 2016 concerning amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code.