Head of the General Crimes Section (Kasi Pidum) of the Asahan District Attorney’s Office, Naharuddin Rambe, SH, MH

progresifjaya.id, JAKARTA – The absence of victim witness Syahbuki Hasibuan from the trial of the serious assault case involving defendants Pontas Sibarani and Budiman Sibarani at the Asahan District Court, North Sumatra, apparently had no significant impact. Public Prosecutor (JPU) Gunawan Putra Manihuruk confirmed that he would press ahead with his charges against the two suspects under Article 351 paragraph (2) concerning Serious Assault, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

This confirmation was confirmed directly by the Head of the General Crimes Section (Kasi Pidum) of the Asahan District Attorney’s Office, Naharuddin Rambe, SH, MH, to progresifjaya.co.id via cellphone call to the Asahan District Attorney, Basril G, SH, MH, on Tuesday morning, (10/14).

Regarding the peace letter between the victim and the defendant, which was widely rumored to be used by the prosecutor to mitigate the judge’s sentence, Naharuddin firmly stated that his office would not acknowledge the letter.

“We at the Asahan District Attorney’s Office do not acknowledge the existence of the letter. As long as there is no direct testimony from the victim-witness regarding the letter in court, consider it a joke by the defendant. It has no impact on the trial,” Naharuddin stated firmly.

He explained, that even though the victim-witness has not appeared in court, his office remains committed to imposing a heavy sentence on the defendant. There is still other evidence, including the sworn testimony of the complainant, audio-visual video recordings of the assault, the victim’s autopsy report, and all hospital medical records, which indicate the victim was seriously injured and permanently blind in his left eye.

“We at the prosecutor’s office have also attempted to locate the victim, but have not found him. There are also reports that the victim has changed address. But whatever the alleged motive for the missing victim-witness, we still have the weapons to charge both defendants with criminal law,” Naharuddin stated.

“We are also racing against time to extend the detention period for the two defendants. We must ensure that both defendants are sentenced to several years in prison before their detention period expires. That is our guarantee to the victims’ families. We ask for your support and prayers so that our hopes and targets are achieved,” he added.

Separately, Prof. Andre Yosua M, a criminal law observer and Professor of Law at the Police Science College (STIK-PTIK), told progresifjaya.id that, he remains doubtful whether the two defendants in the serious assault case will actually be sentenced to prison by the judge even though the victim witnesses were not present at the trial.

“Theoretically, Article 160 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that the first question in a trial is the victim, who is the witness. Furthermore, Article 159 paragraph (2) states that the presiding judge can order that an absent witness be brought before the court. Now it remains to be seen how the trial proceeds,” said Prof. Andre.

Logically, referring to these articles, in the context of a complaint offense, the presence of the victim as a witness is crucial. Based on this urgency, the presiding judge has the right to order the witness to be brought before the court immediately.

“The victim’s absence as a witness could prevent the elements of a complaint offense from being met. The resulting consequences are clear, as they undermine the very purpose of the law, namely justice, legal certainty, and its utility,” stated Prof. Andre again in his summary opinion. (Bembo)