REVIEW WAS APPROVED FOR NOVUM REASONS – PHENOMENAL CASES (SENGKON AND KARTA)
The first successful PK application based on novum was the decision in the Sengkon and Karta cases. In this case, the public prosecutor accused Sengkon and Karta of killing Sulaiman and his wife, Siti Haya, in Jatiluhur Village. Sengkon and Karta were charged with murder in the primary indictment. The Bekasi District Court found Sengkon and Karta guilty of murder in accordance with Article 338 of the Criminal Code based on the results of the autopsy (visum et repertum) of Sulaiman and Siti Haya and sentenced them respectively to 12 and 7 years in prison. Sengkon then appealed to PT Bandung, which upheld the PN’s decision. After that, none of them filed an appeal and as a result, PT Bandung’s decision became legally binding. While serving prison sentences, Sengkon and Karta met Sengkon’s cousin, Gunel, who confessed to the murder of Sulaiman and his wife. Gunel’s confession was then reported to the police, and the Bekasi District Court then found Gunel guilty of murder.
As a result, the Supreme Court accepted Sengkon and Karta’s PK application and acquitted both of them. In deciding the petition, the Supreme Court first read the written recommendation from the Attorney General who asked the Supreme Court to accept the PK’s request and cancel the decision requested by the PK, and to adjudicate by declaring acquittal in accordance with Article 21 of Law 14/1970, which is related to Article 12 of Perma 1/1980.
However, in requesting a PK, neither Sengkon nor Karta or their legal advisors followed the procedures outlined in Article 21 of Law 14/1970 and Perma 1/1980. They did not specifically determine the reasons used in the PK application, namely whether the novum or decision conflicted with each other or a combination of both. However, the Supreme Court accepted Gunel’s recognition as a novum based on Perma 1/1980. On that basis, the Supreme Court annulled the PT Bandung and Bekasi District Court’s decisions against Sengkon and Karta and acquitted both of them.
–> Supreme Court Decision No.6 PK/Kr/1980.
Source:
Book “Peninjauan Kembali Koreksi Kesalahan Dalam Putusan”, Written by: Binziad Kadafi, pages 134 and 135.
Regards,
Fredrik J. Pinakunary
