!\1 /\ i I K. A A G U IN G E P LI B L1 iv 1N D O N E S! A v."! Reg. INo K/Pid/20^^... r^rnaivwa ; r u i

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

MUHAMAD VERY MAULANA HIDAYATULLOH alias VERY bin UNTUNG SUJADI

CASE BRIEF

Jurisdiction

Nationalities

Jurisdiction - Geolocation

Latitude: -6.293782809685137

Longitude: 106.84001863002779

Contributing TRP Partner

Latest Country's Death Penalty Status

Rights Allegedly Violated

Fair Trial and Due Process: Right to fair hearing by impartial, independent tribunal

Nature of Offences for Death Penalty

Case Background (300 words max): Muhamad Very Maulana Hidayatullah was charged with premeditated murder under Article 340 of the Indonesian Penal Code, after stabbing and killing Sri Roswati, a pregnant woman, and her two children, Amelia Agustin and Alfian, in Purwakarta on 15 February 2015.

The incident was triggered by a workplace conflict. The defendant had been reprimanded by his supervisor, Widodo (husband of the victim), which left him feeling humiliated and angry. That night, Very decided to visit Widodo’s home to "settle the score." Armed with a knife, he entered the house and killed Sri Roswati and her children when she denied him entry and called for help.

He fled the scene and was later arrested. The autopsy reports confirmed multiple stab wounds that led to massive internal bleeding and death. He was charged with multiple articles, including child protection laws for violence leading to a child's death.

Defence Arguments (200 words max.): In the cassation memorandum, the defendant’s legal counsel argued that the murder occurred spontaneously, triggered by a sudden emotional reaction and not as the result of a well-planned or deliberate action. The defendant’s initial intent was directed toward Widodo, not the victims, and therefore the element of premeditation was absent.

The counsel further urged the panel of judges to maintain neutrality, refraining from siding with either the Public Prosecutor or the Defense Counsel. Legal considerations, they argued, should be grounded in the values upheld by positive legal principles, humanitarian norms, and human rights standards, rather than influenced by pressure or intervention from the victim’s family, who had consistently attended the trial and attempted to interfere in the proceedings.

Judgement with Headnotes (200 words max): The Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal and upheld the death penalty, affirming the decisions of both the Purwakarta District Court and Bandung High Court.

The Court found no legal error in the lower courts’ reasoning. It concluded that the murder of a pregnant woman and two children, done with a weapon brought to the scene, constituted sadistic and inhumane premeditated murder.

Despite the dissenting opinion at the district court level and arguments around mitigating factors, the Supreme Court ruled that the brutality of the act outweighed any claims for leniency, and the death sentence was justified under Indonesian law.

Legal Representation Received

Legislation Related to the Offence(s): Law Number 1 of 1976 concerning the Criminal Code (KUHP) and Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Child Protection

Language of Case Materials