A Legal Analysis of Judicial Considerations in Sentencing Assault Offenses Resulting in Severe Bodily Injury: A Case Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 1488 K/Pid/2022"

Abstract

The classification of physical harm in assault offenses frequently poses a critical legal issue, as demonstrated in Supreme Court Decision Number 1488 K/Pid/2022, where significant physical impairment was legally categorized as simple assault. A persistent research gap exists in judicial practices between the formalistic interpretation of bodily injuries and the substantive reality of the victim's functional loss. Therefore, this study aims to critically evaluate the judges' legal considerations in the aforementioned decision, specifically assessing whether their reasoning aligns with the legal parameters of severe bodily injury under Article 90 and Article 351 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP). This study employs a normative legal research methodology utilizing statutory and case-based approaches, supported by a qualitative analysis of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The findings reveal that the judicial reasoning in this verdict was overly restrictive and contained substantive flaws. By sentencing the defendant for simple assault (Article 351 paragraph 1) despite valid trial evidence such as a medical report (visum et repertum) and witness testimonies indicating the victim's continuous inability to perform their occupation the judges failed to properly apply the criteria for severe bodily injury under Article 90 of the KUHP, thereby compromising substantive justice. Ultimately, this study contributes to criminal law jurisprudence by advocating for a progressive and functional interpretation of "severe bodily injury," which is essential for ensuring legal certainty, proportional sentencing, and comprehensive protection for victims in future judicial proceedings