Strong Kubu Ma'ruf Calls The Prosecutor's Conclusion Regarding Infidelity Of Candrawathi's Women Only Novel Imagination
The defendant's camp, Strong Ma'ruf, denied the conclusion of the public prosecutor (JPU) who stated that he knew of an affair between Putri Candrawathi and Yosua alias Brigadier J. In fact, the conclusion was just a novel.The statement was made by Ma'ruf's team of legal advisers to respond to the prosecutor's replication at the previous trial."The public prosecutor's argument regarding the affair between witness Putri Candrawathi and the victim (Brigadir J) is the public prosecutor's imagination such as compiling a novel," said Strong legal adviser Ma'ruf during a trial at the South Jakarta District Court, Tuesday, January 31.In addition, Ma'ruf's strong camp in his duplicate also questioned the basis of this conclusion. Because, during the trial there were no facts that led to infidelity.Moreover, the prosecutors and witnesses presented never included evidence that strengthens the conclusion about infidelity."Then, our question is where did the public prosecutor take it?" he said.On the other hand, Ma'ruf's strong legal adviser also firmly stated that he did not know about the issue of infidelity.Although, in a series of incidents of alleged harassment, his client had asked Putri Candrawathi to report to Ferdy Sambo by saying 'don't get a thorn in the household'."This statement is a spontaneous and natural reaction from the defendant who feels that there is an act rather than the victim (Brigadir J) which has made witness Putri Candrawathi experience sexual violence by the victim," he said.Meanwhile, the prosecutor had mentioned the plea of the defendant Strong Ma'ruf who did not touch the subject of the case. Because, it is only seen as a vent."On this occasion we will not specifically respond to the plea of the Strong defendant Ma’ruf because it is only an outpouring of the heart that does not touch on the main evidence of the case," said the prosecutor.In this case, Strong Ma'ruf was charged with eight years in prison. They are believed to have violated Article 340 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.