Analysis of Batam District Court Decision Number: 35 / Pid.B / 2012 compared to the Supreme Court Decision Number: 1691 / K / Pid / 2012

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the interpretation of judges through the decision of the Batam District Court Number: 35/Pid.B/2012/PN.BTM which has been reconstructed through the Supreme Court Decision Number: 1691K/Pid/2012 in the murder case on behalf of Defendant MindoTampubolon, S.Ik. This research is a normative legal research, because it is based on library research that takes excerpts from reading books, literature, or supporting books that have relation to the problem to be studied, assisted with primary, secondary and tertiary data sources. This study uses qualitative data analysis and produces descriptive data.The results showed that the Judicial Consideration of the Panel of Judges in Batam District Court Decree Number 35/Pid.B/2012/PN.BTM was the indictment of the Public Prosecutor who stated that the defendant MindoTampubolon, S.Ik did, who ordered and did and participated in the act, intentionally and with prior plans to take the lives of others in their proof related to the elements in Articles 338 and 340 Jo. Article 55 paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal Code. While the non-juridical consideration of the Panel of Judges in Batam District Court Decree Number 35/Pid.B/2012/PN.BTM is that the evidence of the involvement of the accused is only based on the statement of TumpalManik, SH, and always states that the perpetrators of the killings are witnesses GugunGunawan alias Ujang bin Ade. Decision of the Supreme Court Number 1691K/Pid/2012 is in accordance with the sense of justice in accordance with the purpose of criminalization and realized in the form of the application of the principle of Equality Before the Law, the principle of Presumption of Innocence and imprisonment of the defendant MindoTampubolon, S. Ik for a lifetime.