Analisis Yuridis Pembelaan Diri Secara Terpaksa (Noodweer) dalam Kasus Penganiayaan (Studi Putusan Nomor 34/Pid.B/2021/Pn Bhn)

Abstract

Assault is one of the most common crimes occurring in society and often creates complex legal issues. In practice, perpetrators frequently claim that their actions were carried out as a form of self-defense (noodweer). However, debates often arise as to whether such acts truly fulfill the elements of noodweer or instead constitute vigilantism (eigenrichting). This is evident in Decision No. 34/Pid.B/2021/PN Bhn, where, according to the facts, the defendant acted in self defense against an assault, yet the court still imposed a criminal sentence. This situation reflects differing interpretations of noodweer as a ground for exclusion of criminal liability in Indonesian criminal law. This research, entitled “Juridical Analysis of Self-Defense (Noodweer) in Assault Cases: A Study of Decision No. 34/Pid.B/2021/PN Bhn”, aims to examine the legal regulation of noodweer in Indonesian criminal law, to analyze its elements and distinguish it from eigenrichting and noodweer excess, and to assess the judicial considerations in the aforementioned decision. The study employs a normative legal research method, using statutory and case approaches, with data collected from literature studies and analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that noodweer is regulated under Article 49(1) of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) and Article 34 of Law No. 1 of 2023 as a ground of justification, while noodweer excess constitutes a ground of excuse. The fundamental distinction from vigilantism lies in legality and proportionality. In the examined case, the panel of judges concluded that the requirements of noodweer were not met, resulting in a conviction despite the defendant’s actions being a reaction to an assault. The study concludes that inconsistencies remain in the judicial application of noodweer, highlighting the need for a deeper understanding of legitimate self-defense criteria to ensure consistent judicial reasoning.