BANDUNG, LITERASIHUKUM.COM - Two decisions of the Bale Bandung District Court in the Budhi Rismawan murder case need to be highlighted because they contain sentencing anomalies. In case No. 151/Pid.B/2025/PN Blb on behalf of Marhaban Basyar alias Bam and case No. 152/Pid.B/2025/PN Blb on behalf of Dodi Supriadi, the panel of judges imposed the same sentence, namely imprisonment for 12 years, even though the position of the two in the criminal offense was juridically different.

Marhaban Basyar was the main perpetrator who directly thrust the knife into the victim's body, causing the victim to die. Meanwhile, Dodi Supriadi was positioned as an accomplice based on Article 56 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code because he was considered to have provided the means and opportunities for murder.

The bloody tragedy behind alcohol and pawned motorcycles

This incident started in October 2024, when the victim, Budhi Rismawan, was involved in a conflict with Marhaban Basyar (aka Bam) and Dodi Supriadi. The root of the problem was that the victim's motorcycle had been pawned by the defendants to buy alcohol.

The climax occurred on October 24, 2024. Feeling hurt because he had previously been beaten by the victim, Bam invited Dodi to visit the victim's house. On the way, Dodi gave his knife to Bam as preparation. Upon arrival at the location, a fight broke out. Bam stabbed the victim once in the stomach until he died, while Dodi stood next to him to ensure the action was successful by asking, "Bam, has it been stabbed yet?" before finally the two ran away.

Identical verdicts against the flow of Article 57 of the Criminal Code

In a split trial, the panel of judges in verdict number 151/Pid.B/2025/PN Blb stated that Marhaban Basyar was legally and convincingly proven to have committed the crime of "intentionally taking the life of another person" in accordance with Article 338 of the Criminal Code, and was sentenced to 12 years in prison. The facts of the trial showed that Marhaban thrust the knife once into the victim's left abdomen after previously engaging in an argument and beating with the victim.

A surprise appeared in verdict number 152/Pid.B/2025/PN Blb on behalf of Dodi Supriadi. Although Dodi was charged as an accessory to the crime using Article 338 jo. Article 56-2 of the Criminal Code, he was also sentenced to exactly the same sentence, namely 12 years in prison.

Theoretically, based on Article 57 paragraph (1) of the old Criminal Code (still in force at the time of the incident), the maximum basic punishment against an accomplice is reduced by one third of the main perpetrator's punishment. If the main perpetrator (Bam) is sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, normatively, the sentence of the accomplice is usually below this figure, which is a maximum of 8 years' imprisonment. This normative rule also reflects different degrees of guilt.

Judge's Consideration: The Maid's Active Role

In his consideration of Dodi Supriadi, the judge considered that although Dodi did not directly stab the victim, his involvement was very active. This assessment was based on Dodi's actions of carrying a sharp weapon, giving a knife to Marhaban, inviting him to the victim's house to "fix the problem", and staying with the perpetrator during the incident.

Dodi was the owner of the idea to go to the victim's house, the provider of the weapon (knife), and the person who provided security guarantees to Bam by saying he would be responsible if something fatal happened. The judge viewed Dodi's role as not just passively assisting, but psychologically strengthening the main perpetrator's intention to execute the victim.

Inequality or Justice?

Although sociologically this verdict can be considered to fulfill a sense of justice for the victim's family because both perpetrators are considered equally responsible for the loss of a person's life, in legal dogmatics, this verdict is considered an aberration. Doctrinally, Indonesian criminal law clearly distinguishes between the main perpetrator (pleger) and the accomplice (medeplichtige). Assistance in a criminal offense is actually considered to have a lighter degree of guilt than the main perpetrator because the contribution is indirect.

The inequality of punishment here lies not in the difference in numbers, but in the "uniformity" of sanctions for two juridically different roles. The prosecution by the Public Prosecutor (JPU) also looks "evenly" by charging both of them 14 years in prison. Whereas the difference in sanction rules in Article 57 of the Criminal Code clearly shows the will of the legislator to distinguish the weight of criminal responsibility between the main perpetrator and the accomplice. In the theory of criminal participation, assistance is a form of accessory involvement that is conceptually below the main perpetrator. When the main perpetrator and the accomplice are sentenced to the same punishment, there is a concern that the differentiation of roles in criminal law becomes blurred.

This murder case is certainly an interesting example of the discourse on the extent to which an accomplice to a crime can be held accountable on a par with the main perpetrator.