ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini mengkaji beberapa permasalahan, pertama alasan kasasi terdakwa terhadap kesalahan penerapan hukum pembuktian dalam perkara Narkotika sudah sesuai dengan Pasal 253 KUHAP. Kedua pertimbangan Mahkamah Agung memutuskan pengajuan kasasi terdakwa dalam perkara Narkotika sesuai dengan Pasal 256 KUHAP.
Penelitian normatif yang bersifat preskriptif dan terapan adalah jenis yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini. Dimana sumber bahan hukum yang digunakan adalah bahan hukum primer dan bahan hukum sekunder yang menggunakan studi kepustakaan untuk teknik pengumpulan data. Sedangkan, teknik analisis bahan hukum yang digunakan adalah metode silogisme dengan pola berpikir deduktif.
Hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa keterangan saksi yang dianggap kurang cukup, serta adanya penjebakan dari pihak polisi, semakin memberanikan diri terdakwa untuk mengajukan banding hingga kasasi. Pengajuan banding ke kasasi yang dilakukan oleh terdakwa, berdasarkan putusan Pengadilan Negeri Tanjung Nomor 136/Pid.Sus/2013/PN.Tjg, berikut putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Nomor 93/PID.SUS/2013/PT.Bjm yang menguatkan, telah dikabulkan hakim Mahkamah Agung. Putusan Mahkamah Agung mendasari Pasal 253 ayat (1) KUHAP, karena dalam putusan sebelumnya, ditemukan penerapan hukum yang salah kepada terdakwa. Jaksa Agung dalam pertimbangan hakim, memutus perkara disesuaikan dengan pasal 256 KUHAP, dimana alat bukti petunjuk digunakan untuk argumentasi hakim atas kesalahan terdakwa. Jerat hukum yang diterima terdakwa sesuai dengan perundang-undangan yang berlaku.
Kata Kunci : Kesalahan Penerapan Hukum, Alat Bukti Petunjuk, Pertimbangan Hakim.
ABSTRACT
This research studied several problems, firstly, whether or not the reason ofappeal to Supreme Court by the defendant against the authentication law misapplication in narcotic case has been consistent with the Article 253 of KUHAP; secondly whether or not the Supreme Court’s rationale in sentencing the appeal by the defendant against narcotic case has been consistent with Article 256 of KUHAP.
This study was a normative law research that was prescriptive and applied in nature. In this research, the law material source employed consisted of primary and secondary ones collected using library study as the technique of collecting data. Meanwhile, the technique of analyzing law material used was syllogism with deductive thinking pattern.
From the result of research, it could be concluded that the witness’s information considered as inadequate and police’s entrapment made the defendant more bravely appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal to Supreme Court made by the defendant, based on Tanjung District Court’s verdict Number 136/Pid.Sus/2013/PN.Tjg and Provincial Court’s Verdict Number 93/PID.SUS/2013/PT.Bjm confirming it, had been granted by the judge of Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s verdict was based on Article 253 clause (1) of KUHAP, because in previous verdict, there was no law misapplication found against the defendant. The Supreme Court in the judge’s rationale in sentencing the case was consistent with article 256 of KUHAP, in which the hint evidence was used for the judge’s argumentation against the defendant’s guilt. The legal snare the defendant received had been consistent with the enacted legislation.
Keywords: Law Misapplication, Hint Evidence, Judge’s Rationale