Real Negation of Court Decisions

Unfortunately, these various theories are contradictory to the Padang District Court Decision Number 372.Pid.B/PN.Pdg which imposed a prison sentence on the person who was initially the victim of persecution who ultimately defended himself, resulting in the murder of the perpetrator. In short, AF (the perpetrator) took out a machete that he was going to throw at ES (the victim), but EP quickly stabbed AF with a knife with the intention of helping ES from AF's attack. Sadly, the fight ended with AF's death.

The Padang District Court as the place to try the case determined ES as a suspect in the case with a sentence of two years and six months. This is certainly not in line with the concept of forced defense itself, because ES did this to avoid attacks from EF first, which was assisted by EP. In fact, the victim was made a suspect in this case.

The judge gave consideration that from the point of view of the legislation Article 49 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code that the defendant was not proven to have committed forced defense, because based on the requirements of Article 49 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code there are provisions for the category of forced defense as follows:

  1. There was a sudden attack.
  2. The sudden attack was against the law.
  3. The forced defense was a necessity.
  4. The method of defense was appropriate.

So, the attack must appear instantly, as must the retaliation.

Based on some of the explanations above, it can be concluded that a person who was initially a victim but became a suspect cannot be fully said to have committed forced defense because there are several requirements that must be met to state that it is a forced defense. If it meets certain conditions, a person's crime can be eliminated with a justifying reason, namely having committed forced defense to protect themselves from the threat of danger.