Sentencing of Jarimah in An Unproven Indictment (Analysis of Judgment No. 15/JN/2022/Ms.Bna

Aceh Qanun Number 6 of 2014 concerning Jinayat Law (hereinafter abbreviated as QHJ) formulates in general ten jarimah. The ten jarimahs consist of Khamar, Maisir, khalwat, Ikhtilath, Zina, Sexual Abuse, Rape, Qadzaf, Liwath, and Musahaqah. Article 191 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) says that if the court is of the opinion that from the results of the examination at the trial, the guilt of the accused for the acts charged against him is not legally and convincingly proven, then the defendant is acquitted. Furthermore, Article 191 paragraph 2 says if the court is of the opinion that the act charged against the defendant is proven, but the act does not constitute a criminal offense, then the defendant is discharged from all lawsuits. The consequences of the provisions of Article 191 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) above show two things, namely: first, if found guilty according to the procedural law stipulated in the procedural law, then the accused can be found guilty. Second, if it turns out that after examination it turns out that what was done by the defendant was not proven, then the legal consequence is that the defendant must be released. Both provisions do not regulate if the alleged network is not proven, this can be seen in decision Number 15/JN/2022/MS. BNA, which in the verdict was charged with the primary charge and the subsidiary charge. The primary charge of the accused was charged with rape as stipulated in the Qanun of Jinayat Law. Then in the subsidiary indictment where the examination and imposition of 'uqubat on jinayat cases in the Shar'iyah Court must be based on the charges filed by the public prosecutor. Empirical facts show that there was a judge's decision that handed down 'uqubat outside of the charges and demands from the JPU as contained in decision number 15/JN/2022/MS. BNA. The research method used to analyze the problems in this study is the normative legal research method. The primary legal materials used are Qanun Hukum Jinayat, Qanun Hukum procedural Jinayat, Code of Criminal Procedure and judge's decision Number 15/JN/2022/MS. BNA. The approach used is the case approach, the statutory approach and the conceptual approach. Data analysis was carried out prescriptively by assessing whether or not the application of the law in decision Number 15/JN/2022/MS was appropriate. BNA. The results showed that the sentencing of charges that were not proven according to the jinayat procedural law evidentiary mechanism was not appropriate in the context of law enforcement. The legal consequence that arises if the charges are not proven is that the defendant must be acquitted of sentencing. The basis for the judge's extra-indictment was because the defendant at trial had admitted to committing adultery with the victim's child, although the JPU at the trial did not charge him with adultery. In addition, the judge used Jurisprudence No. 675K/Pid/1987 as the basis for sentencing, which allowed the judge to impose a lighter sentence than the charges filed by the JPU. Decision Number 15/JN/2022/MS. BNA from the perspective of legal certainty and justice is not accommodated in it, so it tends to be detrimental to the accused.