LEGAL ANALYSIS OF CONTRADICTIONS IN THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS A DE CHARGE THAT INFLUENCE THE DEFENDANT: A CASE STUDY OF MA DECISION NUMBER 4050 K/PID.SUS/2024
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70321/ijslcj.v3i1.169Keywords:
Analysis, cintradictiond, witness, defendatiAbstract
The defendant's right to present mitigating witnesses (witnesses a de charge) is an integral part of the principle of fair trial and the protection of human rights in criminal procedural law. Normatively, the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) does not differentiate the evidentiary value of witnesses based on the party presenting them, but rather emphasizes the fulfillment of formal and material requirements for witness testimony as valid evidence. However, in criminal justice practice, the testimony of witnesses a de charge is not always mitigating and in certain conditions actually contains contradictions that strengthen the charges and incriminate the defendant.
This study aims to analyze the legal position and legal implications of the contradictions in the testimony of witnesses a de charge that incriminate the defendant, with a case study of Supreme Court Decision Number 4050 K/Pid.Sus/2024. The research method used is normative legal research with a statutory, doctrinal, and court decision study approach. The results of the study indicate that the witness's status as a de charge does not determine the direction of the assessment of his testimony.
Judges, based on the principle of freedom to negatively assess evidence in the statutory evidentiary system, have the authority to objectively assess the substance, consistency, and relevance of witness testimony. Supreme Court Decision Number 4050 K/Pid.Sus/2024 confirms that contradictory testimony from a de charge witness may still be used as part of the evidence against the defendant as long as it meets the requirements of valid evidence and is linked to other evidence. This finding demonstrates that the protection of the defendant's rights within a fair trial framework is not absolute but must be placed proportionally in the pursuit of material truth and the upholding of substantive justice.
Downloads
References
Hamzah, Andi. (2008). Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Harahap, Yahya M. (2000). Discussion of Problems and Application of the Criminal Procedure Code (Investigation and Prosecution). Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
Mertokusumo, Sudikno. (2009). Indonesian Civil Procedure Code. Yogyakarta: Liberty (Important to deepen the theory of vrij bewijswaardering or the freedom of judges in assessing evidence).
Moy, J., Sasa, L., Nome, M., Romelus, L., & Dethan, J. (2025). Normative Review of Witnesses and Charges in Judges' Decisions. Edukreatif: Journal of Creativity in Education, 6(1).
Putra, M. J. A., Busroh, F. F., & Utoyo, M. (2023). Legal Analysis of the Implementation of Constitutional Court Decision Number 65/PUU-VIII/2010 Regarding the Validity of Testimonium De Auditu Witness Evidence in Criminal Cases and the Criminal Procedure Code. Lex Stricta: Journal of Legal Studies, 1(3), 135-152.
Rahmi, A., (2018), "The Urgency of Protection for Victims of Sexual Violence in an Integrated Gender-Equitable Criminal Justice System," Mercatoria, 11(1): 37-60.
Ramadhan, M. Z. Y. (2021). Investigators' Obligations in Summoning and Examining Witnesses in Charge. Indonesian Law Enforcement Journal, 2(2), 247-269.
Sitoresmi, P. D. The Defendant's Right to Present a Mitigating Witness (A De Charge) in Assault Trials (Case Study of Decision Number: 71/Pid. B/2015/PN. BAU). Verstek, 6(3).
Sofyanto, Edi. (2023). "The Principle of Fair Trial in the Indonesian Criminal Justice System." Jurnal Justitia Hukum. (Relevant to support your analysis in Part III, Point 3, on Fair Trial).
Suliastini, R. Review of the Use of the Right to Refute and A De Charge Witnesses in Criminal Procedure Law (Case Study of Decision Number: 152/PID. B/2011/PN. P BKN). Verstek, 1(2).
Wahyuni, L., & Khairo, F. (2022). A De Charge Witnesses in Corruption Trials. Lex Stricta: Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), 29-40.
Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 76 of 1981, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 3209).
Supreme Court Decision Number 4050 K/Pid.Sus/2024.
Constitutional Court Decision Number 65/PUU-VIII/2010 concerning the Expansion of the Definition of Witness
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2024). Directory of Supreme Court Decision Number 4050 K/Pid.Sus/2024.
JDIH Prosecutor's Office/Ministry of Law and Human Rights. Full text of Criminal Procedure Code Article 65, Article 116 paragraph (3), and Article 184 paragraph (1)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sofia Khairunnisa Damanik , Atikah Rahmi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.











