JE Continuation Session Of Defendant Of Sexual Violence SPI Batu City, Lawyers Convey Duplicate Claims This Case Is Just An Engineering

The atmosphere of the trial at the Malang District Court after the follow-up trial of the sexual violence case that occurred at the Good Morning Indonesia School (SPI) Batu City, Malang City, East Java, Wednesday (24/8/2022). ANTARA/Vicki Febrianto

MALANG - The follow-up hearing of the sexual violence case that occurred at the Indonesian Good Morning School (SPI) Batu City, East Java, scheduled a duplicate or reading of the defendant's answer to the replica that had been submitted by the Public Prosecutor (JPU).

The Head of the General Crime Section (Kasi Pidum) of the Batu City Attorney's Office, Yogi Sudharsono, said in the duplicate submitted by the attorney for the defendant JE, he still stated that the sexual violence case was a fabrication.

"The duplicate material presented by the legal counsel is more or less the same as that presented in the previous pledoi. The point is that this case is a fabrication," Yogi said as quoted by ANTARA, Wednesday, August 24.

Yogi explained that the follow-up trial of the sexual violence case that ensnared the owner of the Batu City SPI School would be held again on September 7, 2022. During the trial, the panel of judges will read the verdict.

According to him, the postponement of the agenda for reading the decision on the sexual violence case that occurred at the SPI School was because the Panel of Judges needed additional time to make a decision in the case.

"It has been postponed for two weeks for the reading of the judge's decision. (The postponement) is because later considerations may be made," said Yogi.

His party has not yet decided to file an appeal if the result of the panel of judges' decision is not lower than the demands submitted. The public prosecutor will look at the judge's decision and don't want to speculate.

"We'll see the decision first, we don't want to make assumptions," he said.

Meanwhile, one of JE's attorneys, Dito Sitompul, said that the prosecutor did not have enough evidence to prove all the charges against JE. The legal advisor asked the Panel of Judges to decide that JE was free.

"We saw from the start that there was insufficient evidence in this case. The public prosecutor could not prove all the charges that were indicted against our client," he said.

He considered that the delay in reading the decision made by the Panel of Judges for two weeks was because the Panel of Judges needed accuracy in deciding the case.

"The verdict is in two weeks, because the judge needs to be careful in deciding this case," he added.

In this case, the victim of alleged sexual violence was one witness victim with the initials SDS. This is a fact of the trial that is currently running.

The Public Prosecutor charged the defendant JE with article 81 paragraph 2 of Law number 23 of 2002 concerning Child Protection, as has been amended several times, most recently by Law number 1 of 2016, regarding the second amendment to Law number 23 of 2002 concerning child protection into Law Juncto article 64 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.

JE was sentenced to 15 years in prison, a subsidiary of six months with a fine of Rp. 300 million, and to pay restitution to the victim of Rp. 44 million.