Eksaminasi Kasus Tindak Pidana Pencurian, Nomor putusan 724/Pib.B/2021/PN Dps

Summary

In this presentation, a group of legal experts outlines the details of a criminal case involving theft. The defendant, Imron, stole a mobile phone from a motorcycle parked outside a house in Denpasar, Bali. He was charged under Article 362 of the Indonesian Penal Code for taking someone else's property with the intent to own it unlawfully. The court found the defendant guilty, relying on witness testimony and physical evidence. The victim, Tanti Yuliana Dewi, suffered a loss of approximately 2.6 million rupiah. The case serves as a clear example of criminal theft and the judicial process.

Takeaways

• 😀 The case involves a theft of a Xiaomi Play phone by the defendant Imron in Denpasar, Bali on April 7, 2018.
• 😀 Imron, a well driller, was the accused, and the victim was Tanti Yuliana Dewi, who owned the stolen phone.
• 😀 The phone was taken from the dashboard of a motorcycle parked outside a house on Ceningan Sari Street, Denpasar.
• 😀 The theft occurred when the street was quiet, and Imron saw an opportunity to steal the phone.
• 😀 The victim, Tanti, realized her phone was missing only after entering her house and then attempted to find it outside.
• 😀 The total value of the stolen property was approximately 2.6 million Rupiah.
• 😀 Imron was charged under Article 362 of the Indonesian Penal Code for theft, which involves taking someone else's property without consent.
• 😀 The court found that Imron’s intent was to keep and use the phone unlawfully, as he did not have a phone of his own.
• 😀 The court used evidence from the victim's testimony, witness accounts, and physical evidence (the phone and motorcycle) to convict Imron.
• 😀 Imron was ultimately convicted of theft and was sentenced according to the legal provisions of the Indonesian Penal Code.

Q & A

Who is the defendant in this case, and what is his background?

The defendant is Imron, a 44-year-old male from Banyuwangi, Indonesia. He works as a private well-drilling laborer and lives in Denpasar, South Denpasar.

What crime was Imron charged with?

Imron was charged with theft under Article 362 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP), which pertains to taking someone else's property with the intent to possess it unlawfully.

What was the specific incident that led to Imron's arrest?

On April 7, 2012, Imron saw a motorbike parked on Jalan Ceningan Sari in Denpasar, with a Xiaomi smartphone on its dashboard. He took the phone and fled, intending to keep it for himself.

What was the stolen item, and who was the victim?

The stolen item was a Xiaomi smartphone, model Xiaomi Play, color blue. The victim was Tanti Yuliana Dewi, the owner of the phone.

How did the victim discover the theft?

The victim, Tanti Yuliana Dewi, parked her motorbike and went into a house. Upon returning two minutes later, she realized that the phone was missing from her motorbike's dashboard.

What is the legal basis for the charges against Imron?

Imron was charged under Article 362 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP), which defines theft as the act of taking someone else's property with the intent to possess it unlawfully.

What did the court consider in determining Imron's guilt?

The court considered witness testimonies, the defendant's own statements, and the physical evidence, including the stolen phone and motorbike. The court concluded that Imron had taken the phone without the owner's consent, with the intent to use it.

What was the financial impact on the victim due to the theft?

The victim, Tanti Yuliana Dewi, experienced a financial loss of approximately IDR 2,600,000 due to the theft of the Xiaomi smartphone.

What was the court's final ruling in this case?

The court found Imron guilty of theft and confirmed that the stolen item was taken without the owner's permission. The court ruled that the theft had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

How did the court interpret the defendant's intent in this case?

The court determined that Imron's intent was to possess the phone for personal use, as he did not have a phone of his own. This fulfilled the legal criteria for theft with unlawful intent.