THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE CHARGED ARTICLE IN MILD ASSAULT CRIMINAL CASE (A CASE STUDY OF DECISION NUMBER : 248/PID.B/2023/PN.GPR)

Abstract

Decision Number 248/Pid.B/2023/PN.Gpr determined that the perpetrator had committed the criminal act of assault in the form of physical beating, charged under Article 351 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP), and was sentenced to six months in prison. The subsequent issue pertains to the resolution of mild assault cases using alternative methods. This study aims to assess the appropriateness of the Public Prosecutor’s charge in relation to the defendant’s actions, analyze the differences between ordinary assault and mild assault, and determine whether the criminal act in this decision could be resolved through alternative means. This research uses a normative juridical method. The findings indicate that Article 351 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, used as the charge in Decision Number 248/Pid.B/2023/PN.Gpr, does not align with the defendant's actions, which are more appropriately classified as mild assault under Article 352 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP). This is supported by the results of the Visum et Repertum report Number 02/SKV/RSUMSM/V/2023, which stated that the bruises caused by the beating were classified as minor injuries. According to the Prosecutor’s Regulation Number 15 of 2020 and the Indonesian National Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021, the criminal act of assault in Decision Number 248/Pid.B/2023/PN.Gpr should have been resolved through an alternative resolution or a Restorative Justice approach

Keywords: Assault, Misdemeanor, Alternative Dispute Resolution