Jakarta – Indonesian Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the acquittal of Krishna Kumar Tolaram alias Anand Krishna belches something weird! Three supreme judges namely Zaharuddin Utama, Achmad Yamanie and Sofyan Sitompul, have based their decision on prosecutor’s dossier which has nothing to do with molestation charges against Anand Krishna. The prosecutor, in fact, inserted branding crime case. Oh my God!
The copy of verdict for Anand Krishna, downloaded by Detikcom from Supreme Court’s website on Wednesday (11/14/2012), in page 38 reads the prosecutor’s judgment to file the cassation:
“As a proof of Judex Juris, that Panel of Judge of West Java High Court has been ignorant towards legal fact written in our prosecution, can be seen in the verdict made by Judex Facti number 20/Pid/2006/PT /Bdg dated 21 April 2006 which simply not touches on our criminal prosecution. So, for the sake of justice upholding and legal certainty, it is reasonable enough to annul verdict number 20/Pid/2006/PT /Bdg dated 21 April 2006 made by Panel of Judge of West Java High Court”
Detikcom found out that case number 20/Pid/2006/PT.Bdg dated 21 April 2006 is about criminal dispute on branding, whereas Erik Mulya Wijaya was the defendant.
Erik was charged to have violated article 24 point 1 of Law Number 5/1984 on Industry. At cassation level Erik was sentenced 2 year term for guilty of using the brand which is the same as the registered one by other party.
The above reasons which prosecutor used as legal foundation of the cassation to reverse Anand Krishna’s acquittal appear in the verdict. Then, based on these, Supreme Judge panel agreed Anand is proven to have conducted obscene acts. And, as stipulated in Article 294 point 2 Criminal Code jo Artcile 64 point 1 Criminal Code on Obscene Act, the defendant is sentenced to serve 2 year 6 month imprisonment.
Why is that branding crime case used as legal base by three Supreme Judges in the verdict of Anand Krishna?
(Dominggus Koro)
