The defendant’s actions can be categorized as a form of error in a procedure.
REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAKARTA — Trisakti University criminal law expert witness Dian Adriawan assessed that the shooting of four Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) soldiers in Xenia’s car by the defendant Brigadier Fikri Ramadhan and Ipda M Yusmin Ohorella was a deliberate act. This was conveyed in the follow-up trial of the case unlawfull killing against Laskar FPI at the South Jakarta District Court, Tuesday (11/1/2022).
On that occasion, Dian was asked to explain the primary indictment of Article 338 juncto Article 55 paragraph 1 to 1 of the Criminal Code. Article 338 of the Criminal Code reads “Whoever intentionally takes the life of another, shall be punished, for treason, to death, with imprisonment for a maximum of 15 years.”
“That is related to Article 338, it was entered (the shooting case), it could be intentionally as a goal, or intentionally with awareness of the possibility, two things related to intentional use for Article 338,” explained Dian.
He argues, in this case the defendant can be subject to Article 338 of the Criminal Code. This is because the defendant’s actions can be categorized as a form of error in the form of intentional or negligence (negligence) of a procedure. Meanwhile, in terms of theory, intentionality is also divided into three forms, namely intentionally as a goal, intentionally with an awareness of certainty, and deliberately with an awareness of possibility.
Dian considered the actions of the defendants to fall into the second category. That is deliberately with an awareness of certainty. “Intentionally, the perpetrator from the beginning wanted and knew (the shooting) was an act that was contrary to the criminal law,” said Dian.
Meanwhile, continued Dian, the allegation of Article 55 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code in the case of the shooting of four FPI Troops in the Xenia Silver car was incorrect. Because, he said, Ipda Mohammad Yusmin Ohorella who was driving the car when the incident occurred was considered not directly involved. So according to him it can only be said as helpful.
Then, said Dian, if referring to Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code about people who participate in criminal acts, they can be convicted as perpetrators of criminal acts. Thus, Dian said, the article is not appropriate. According to him, his help was not from the side of his participation. Because the position of assistance is the person who provides assistance when the crime is committed or before the crime is committed.
“So that’s what I saw because from the inclusion side of Article 55 I didn’t see it, I only saw that there was assistance. And I can classify that assistance when the crime was committed in Article 56 point 1,” said Dian.
Meanwhile, another expert criminal witness, Agus Surono from Al Azhar University, Indonesia, assessed that the defendant’s act of taking another person’s life was not an intentional act. He considered that the defendants’ actions were in self-defense. Because the defendant’s choice was FPI Laskar who became victims or they became victims.
“I confirm that the death of this victim was not wanted as referred to in Article 338, one of the phrase What is confirmed is that it intentionally kills other people, therefore I think this is included in Article 49 paragraph 1,” explained Agus.
The prosecutor also questioned Agus with questions. However, Agus remained firm in his opinion. He also considered the honor, decency or property of the accused to be threatened because of a close-range attack from the victim. So that the defense beyond the limit had to be done.
“For that, the elements of Article 49 Paragraph 1 can be qualified, the four elements must be met. So I make this opinion meet the qualifications of Article 49 Paragraph 1,” explained Agus.
In this case the Public Prosecutor (JPU) tried to prove the charges for the shooting incident to four FPI soldiers. The shooting of the four human children was allegedly carried out when Ipda Mohammad Yusmlin Ohorella and Ipda Elwira Priadi Z (deceased). Then Brigadier Fikri Ramadhan moved the four members of Laskar FPI to the Xenia Silver car that had been prepared in advance.
“Four FPI members who were transferred to a silver Daihatsu Xenia car were carried out by being inserted through the rear trunk door and ordered to sit squatting on a folded chair without being handcuffed or tied,” explained the Prosecutor in the prosecutor’s indictment, during the trial on 18 last October 2021.
In his statement, the prosecutor stated that the four members of the FPI Laskar were suspected of attacking First Brigadier Fikri Ramadhan in the vicinity of the incident. FPI soldiers are also suspected of trying to seize weapons belonging to Brigadier Fikri Ramadhan. Then the commotion was heard by Ipda Mohammad Yusmin Ohorella, then looked back and gave a signal to Ipda Elwira Priadi (deceased) while reducing the speed of the vehicle so that Ipda Elwira Priadi (deceased) could shoot freely.
Meanwhile, said the Prosecutor, the bullets fired by Ipda Elwira Priadi hit Luthfi Hakim and Akhmad Sofyan. The melee shot instantly killed both of them.
Then the condition was under control, but Brigadier Fikri Ramadhan took his gun and shot M Suci Khadavi and M Reza who were sitting in the back seat. Both died immediately.
Then, Ipda Mohammad Yusmin Ohorella pulled the silver Daihatsu Xenia to the shoulder of the road after the four FPI soldiers were shot. “Then he went down and called Kompol Ressa F Marassa Bessy, and reported the situation that had occurred. Then he was ordered to take the four FPI members to the Police Hospital for medical treatment,” said the Prosecutor.
Consequences of deeds unlawfull killing that Briptu Fikri Ramadhan and Ipda Mohammad Yusmin Ohorella were charged with the primary charge of Article 338 and the charge of Subsidiary Article 351 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code juncto Article 55 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.
All the chronology of the perpetrator’s confession…
– .
