The Prosecutor Responds to the Defense Note of the Murder Defendant Dante, Wants Yudha Arfandi to Remain Sentenced to Death

Kapanlagi.com - The East Jakarta District Court reconvened for the trial of the case concerning the death of Raden Andante Khalif Pramudityo alias Dante, the son of Tamara Tyasmara and Angger Dimas. This trial focuses on the response of the Public Prosecutor (JPU) to the defense note submitted by the defendant, Yudha Arfandi.

In the trial, the prosecutor firmly rejected several points raised in Yudha's defense. One crucial point is regarding the claim of negligence put forth by the defendant's side. The prosecutor stated that Yudha's actions were not merely ordinary negligence, but rather an act that cannot be justified.

"According to expert opinion, submerging a child for more than 10 seconds is not a proper breathing exercise for a small child," said the prosecutor during the trial on Thursday (17/10/2024).

1. Prosecution Rebuttal

This statement refutes the claim that the incident was merely an accident during swimming practice. The prosecution also asserts that Yudha's actions were far from proper training methods.

"The defendant must realize that the victim's child could not possibly be submerged repeatedly with only a short interval of time," emphasized the prosecution.

2. Request to Reject the Defendant's Defense

Furthermore, the prosecution considers that the defense note submitted by Yudha's legal team is merely a personal statement without legal basis. "We stand by the charges that were read in the session on September 23, 2024," said the prosecution.

The prosecution also requests the panel of judges to reject the defendant's defense and his legal advisors. "We ask the panel of judges at the East Jakarta District Court to reject or set aside the defense from the defendant and his legal team," he added.

3. Charged with Several Serious Articles

It is known that Yudha Arfandi has been charged with several serious articles, including Article 338 of the Penal Code regarding murder, Article 340 of the Penal Code regarding premeditated murder, as well as Article 76C in conjunction with Article 80 paragraph (3) of the Child Protection Law. If proven guilty, Yudha faces a life sentence or a maximum punishment of 20 years.

The Public Prosecutor believes that Yudha's actions meet all the elements in the primary charge. They assess that the defendant is legally and convincingly guilty of intentionally taking the victim's life as stipulated in Article 340 of the Penal Code.

On the other hand, Yudha's side, in their defense note, refutes the Public Prosecutor's demands. According to them, the incident was not premeditated murder, but rather an accident due to negligence while training for swimming.

4.

5.

(kpl/aal/rsp)