Film Pendek "Keadilan Sang Hakim"

Summary

In a small coastal village in Aceh, Indonesia, a poor farmer named Mudasir is accused of stealing a calf. The courtroom is tense as both Mudasir and a wealthy rancher, Haji Sulaiman, claim ownership of the calf. As the trial unfolds, the judge decides to conduct an on-site inspection, where the calf's behavior reveals its true owner. The court eventually clears Mudasir of all charges, ruling in his favor, demonstrating the deep bond between man and animal that cannot be fabricated.

Takeaways

• ⚖️ A poor farmer named Mudasir from western Indonesia is accused of stealing a cow, sparking a trial to determine justice.
• 🐄 Mudasir claims the cow he took belongs to him and not Haji Sulaiman, a livestock businessman who also claims ownership.
• 👨‍⚖️ The courtroom is crowded with spectators eager to see the outcome of this theft case involving a cow.
• 🕵️‍♂️ Witnesses testify that Mudasir took the cow from Haji Sulaiman's farm, but Mudasir insists he didn't steal it.
• ⚽ Mudasir named the cow 'Pele' after his favorite Brazilian football player, stating he raised it from birth.
• 🐾 The judge decides to conduct an on-site inspection to observe the cow's reaction to both parties calling it.
• 🚶‍♂️ When Mudasir calls the cow, it immediately approaches him, reinforcing his claim of ownership.
• 🧑‍⚖️ After observing the cow's behavior, the judges believe Mudasir's story over the other witnesses.
• 🙅‍♂️ The court rules that Mudasir is not guilty, as there is insufficient evidence to prove he stole the cow.
• ✅ The judges conclude that the cow's natural instinct proves Mudasir's ownership, leading to his acquittal and the return of the cow.

Q & A

What is the central conflict in the story?

The central conflict revolves around a legal dispute over the ownership of a cow between Mudasir, a poor farmer, and Haji Sulaiman, a wealthy livestock entrepreneur. Both parties claim ownership of the cow, leading to a court case.

Why does Mudasir believe the cow belongs to him?

Mudasir believes the cow belongs to him because he raised it from a young age, naming it 'Pele' after his favorite Brazilian soccer player. He claims to have received the cow as a calf from the livestock department four years ago and has taken care of it ever since.

What evidence does Mudasir provide to support his claim of ownership?

Mudasir claims that the cow's large size, wide ears, and brown skin are distinguishing features that prove it is his. He also mentions that he has been taking care of the cow since it was a calf.

How does the court attempt to resolve the ownership dispute?

The court decides to conduct an on-site inspection where both Mudasir and Haji Sulaiman are asked to call the cow in their usual manner. The cow's response to Mudasir's call, moving towards him, is used as evidence of his ownership.

What conclusion does the court reach regarding the ownership of the cow?

The court concludes that Mudasir is the rightful owner of the cow. This decision is based on the cow's natural response to Mudasir during the on-site inspection, indicating a long-term bond between them.

What is the significance of the cow's reaction to Mudasir during the inspection?

The cow's reaction is significant because it demonstrates a natural bond and familiarity with Mudasir, suggesting that he has indeed been caring for the cow for a long time. The court uses this behavior as key evidence to support Mudasir's claim.

Why does the court emphasize that a cow cannot lie?

The court emphasizes that a cow cannot lie to highlight that the animal's natural behavior and response to its caregiver is genuine and unmanipulated, unlike human testimonies, which could be false or influenced.

What are the implications of the court's decision for Mudasir?

As a result of the court's decision, Mudasir is declared not guilty of theft, his rights are restored, and the cow is returned to him. The case also reinforces his dignity and standing in the community.

How does the court justify its decision to compare human testimony with the behavior of an animal?

The court justifies this comparison by stating that while humans can lie, especially under pressure, an animal's natural behavior cannot be easily manipulated. The relationship between the animal and its owner is based on long-term care and trust, which cannot be forged quickly.

What lesson does the court case convey about the justice system?

The case highlights the importance of seeking the truth in the justice system, even if it requires unconventional methods. It shows that justice should be based on careful consideration of all evidence, including natural behavior, to ensure a fair and just outcome.