Three Tampubolon trial defendants seek acquittal
JAKARTA (JP): The defense lawyers in the trial of three of the four suspects in the killing of Brig. Gen. Tampubolon yesterday asked the East Jakarta District Court to acquit their clients of all charges. While the lawyer for the other defendant has requested a lighter sentence for his client.
Rarimuli Pinem, a lawyer representing Hendrik Setyawan, told presiding judge Soeroto that the defendant must be acquitted from the charges of violating Article 338 and 55 section 1 of the Criminal Code Procedures dealing with intentional murder.
Rarimuli said that the prosecutor could not prove that the killing was intentional, adding that it was an accident.
Earlier on July 21 prosecutor Muslim Seijah requested the judge to sentence Hendrik, 25, a mechanic in a automobile workshop, to 18 years of imprisonment for intentional murder.
Rarimuli also requested that as Hendrik is still young he should be given a chance to improve his life.
Brig. Gen. Tampubolon was killed during a altercation near a Chinese cemetery in Cipinang, East Jakarta, on April 14.
According to the autopsy report made by Dr. Yuli Budiningsih of the University of Indonesia (UI), the general's death was caused by 16 stab wounds which penetrated his liver and lungs.
John T. Siahaan, a lawyer representing Rusdi Abdul Manan, 24, a security guard of the Hata Wana Technical High School in East Jakarta, said that Rusdi's action was purely unintentional.
"I am convinced, Your Honor, that my client's action was influenced by alcoholic drinks he consumed earlier," Siahaan said, adding that Rusdi drank such alcoholic drinks as Vodka, whisky and beer a few hours before the killing occurred.
Meanwhile, Gestiawati, another lawyer who represents Rusdi, said because the alcoholic drinks controlled his senses prosecutor Muslim Seijah could not prove that her client had violated the same articles on intentional murder.
On July 21 Prosecutor Muslim also demanded that Rusdi should be given an 18-year jail term. However, in yesterday's trial session the two lawyers asked the judges to clear Rusdi of all charges.
Hiu Hindiana, a lawyer representing Risdiyanto Joko, opened her statement by expressing her dissatisfaction with the court proceedings which prevented her from presenting a forensic expert as a witness.
According to Hiu, since her client was also under the influence of alcohol, he could not be charged with the Criminal Code articles on intentional murder.
Hiu only agreed to prosecutor Saleh Abdurrahman's charges that the defendant had violated Article 2, section 1 of the 1951 Emergency Law No. 12 on illegal possession of weapons.
During the court session Risdiyanto, 25, a cleaning service attendant with a joint venture surveyor company, read his own statement. He thanked the judges, the prosecutor and his lawyers for what he called a "just trial".
Apology
He also apologized to the Tampubolons for his action which caused the general's death.
"I realize that my apology will not solve the problem but that is all I can do and I promise to serve my sentence willingly," he said, while Mrs. Sinta Tampubolon, the general's wife, all composed, stared at him.
Prosecutor Saleh demanded the court to sentence Risdiyanto to 18 years of imprisonment on July 21.
In his closing statement, Hiu asked the judges to give Risdiyanto an appropriate punishment. The lawyer did not elaborate on what she meant by "appropriate".
Alfred Andreas Taurus, a lawyer representing the fourth defendant, Lukman Muhamm, said the prosecutor's charges that his client had violated Articles 338 and 55, section 1 and Article 170, section 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code Procedures on group murder could not be proven.
He said that Lukman was the only one who pushed the general's body to prevent the fight, but Lukman's action only gave his friends the opportunity to attack Tampubolon with their own knives.
"Lukman was the only one who did not carry a weapon. He even asked for Tampubolon's forgiveness for his friends' behavior," Alfred said.
Prosecutor Sutomo demanded a 15-year imprisonment for defendant Lukman, an ojek (motorcycle taxi) driver.
Prosecutor Sutomo charged the defendant with a less serious violation because Lukman was not facing any charges on violating Article 2 section 1 of the 1951 Emergency Law on illegal possession of weapons.
Presiding judge Soeroto adjourned the court session until tomorrow to give prosecutors Muslim Seijah, Saleh Abdurrahman and Soetomo time to prepare their answers to the defense lawyers' statements.(03)