Legal Protection for Victims of Crime with Forced Defense According to Law Number 1 of 2023 of the Criminal Code

Anggraeni Puspitarini; Didik Suhariyanto; Gradios Nyoman Tio Rae

Authors

Anggraeni Puspitarini Universitas Bung Karno
Didik Suhariyanto Universitas Bung Karno
Gradios Nyoman Tio Rae Universitas Bung Karno

Keywords:

Victims of crime, Criminal Code, Forced Defence, Legal Protection

Abstract

Law enforcement often shows inconsistencies, where victims of crimes who commit forced defense (Noodweer) can actually become suspects or defendants who cause legal uncertainty and a sense of injustice. This study aims to analyze legal protection and legal justice for victims who are also perpetrators of forced defense crimes. This study specifically highlights Decision Number 1225/ Pid.B /2020/PN- Jkt.Sel , where a wife who stabbed her husband in a situation of threat of physical and verbal violence was sentenced to 4 years in prison for alleged persecution that caused death (Article 351 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Code). The Panel of Judges argued that the defendant's actions could not be categorized as forced self-defense. The research method used is normative juridical law using legislative, conceptual, analytical, and case approaches. The scope of this research is legal protection for victims of criminal acts who commit forced defense (Noodweer) in the perspective of the old Criminal Code (KUHP) and Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the new Criminal Code (especially Articles 34 and 43). The results of the study show that the defendant's actions were carried out because of force and there was a mental shock constituting a forced defense (noodweer ). The conclusion is that there is a reason for the pardon and the defendant should not be subject to criminal charges as specified in Article 49 Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code.

References

T. M. Amisi, R. Pinasang, and H. Y. A. Bawole, “Pertimbangan Hakim Alasan Pembelaan Terpaksa (Noodweer) Terdakwa Tindak Pidana Pengeroyokan Dalam Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Nomor : 53/PID/2020/PT BBL 1,” J. Fak. Huk. Unsrat Lex Adm., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2024.

M. C. Rizal, “Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Pembela Hak Asasi Manusia Perspektif Teori Alasan Penghapus Pidana,” Arena Huk. Jurnall Ilmu Huk., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 18–41, 2023, doi: https://doi org/10 21776/ub arenahukum 2023 01601 2.

R. Wailisahalong, W. A. Hidaya, and S. Marthin, “Studi Komparasi Antara Overmacht dengan Noodweer Perpektif Undang-Undang No.1 Tahun 2003,” Judge J. Huk., vol. 05, no. 03, pp. 21–34, 2024, doi: doi.org/10.54209/judge.v6i01.835.

A. J. Zidan and W. Afifah, “Perlindungan Hukum Korban Tindak Pidana Yang Dilakukan Pelaku Dengan Gangguan Jiwa Dalam Prespektif Restorative Justice,” J. Huk. Leg., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 352–362, 2025.

B. S. Labibah and V. Mahardhika, “Analisis Yuridis Pembelaan Terpaksa Yang Melampaui Batas (Noodweer Exces) Pada Pasal 49 Ayat ( 2 ) KUHP Dalam Perkara Tindak Pidana Penganiayaan (Putusan Nomor 33 / PID . B / 2024 / PN Bir ),” no. 2, pp. 1–11, 2024.

M. Zainal, “Studi Komparasi Perbuatan Pembelaan Diri Overmacht, Noodweer Dan Noodweerexces Dalam Perspektif Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana,” JustnessJurnal Huk. Polit. dan Agama, vol. 2, no. 01, pp. 1–20, 2022.

M. M. Abyan and B. P. Gunawan, “Pembelaan Diri Menurut Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 Tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana,” J. Reformasi Huk. Cogito Ergo Sum, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 22–29, 2025.

N. Fajrin and M. F. Ramadhan, “Tinjauan Yuridis Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan atas Dasar Membela Diri,” Qawanin J. Ilmu Huk., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 48–59, 2023.

M. H. F. Alfathan, M. Taufiqurrahman, and A. F. Putra, “Analisis Hukum Unsur Pembelaan Terpaksa Atau Membela Diri Dalam Hukum Pidana,” J. Multidisiplin Ilmu Akad., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 118–130, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.61722/jmia.v2i3.4562.

T. M. Ali, “Kepeastian Hukum Penghentian Penyidikan Oleh Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Yang Didasari Pada Tindakan Pembelaan Terpaksa Yang Melampaui Batas (Noodweer Excees),” J. Ilm. Metadata, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 167–182, 2023.

K. Nisa and A. F. Rosando, “Urgensi Analisis Pertanggungjawaban Hukum Terhadap Pelaku Kejahatan Dengan Kepribadian Ganda (Dissociative Identity Disorder),” Media Huk. Indones., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 186–193, 2025, doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17847892 This.

Y. Y. Laitera, A. Sinurat, “Kajian Yuridis Tentang Penghentian Penyidikan Dalam Pembunuhan Karena Pembelaan Terpaksa Yang Melampaui Batas,” J. Proyuris, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 41–53, 2024.

Rizki, E. Lahagu, and C. S. Hutasoit, “Tinjauan Yuridis Putusan No . 32 / Pid . B / 2020 / Pn Dgl Tentang Pembelaan Terpaksa (Noodweer),” Innov. J. Soc. Sci. Res., vol. 3, no. 32, pp. 3309–3318, 2023.

A. M. Wiarnata, M. H. Adnan, S. A. Saputro, A. Pasaribu, and K. A. Wicaksana, “Konsep Kemudaratan sebagai Alasan Pembenar dan Pemaaf : Analisis Kaidah ke-15 Fikih Mabadi ’ Al -Awwaliyah dalam Perspektif Pasal 33 KUHP 2023,” Jejakdigital, vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 275–284, 2025.

G. P. Fletcher, Rethinking criminal law. Brown and Company, 1978.

Moeljatno, Asas-asas hukum pidana, Edisi Revisi. Rineka Cipta, 2008.

Muladi and Arief, Teori-teori dan kebijakan pidana. Alumni, 2010.

W. I. Wahyudi and F. Yani, “Tinjauan Hukum Mengenai Pembelaan Terpaksa Terhadap Korban Pencurian Dengan Kekerasan ( Begal ) ( Studi Di Polres Pelabuhan Belawan ),” J. Mimb. Ilmu Huk., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 63–74, 2024.

T. Hidayat and H. A. Kusumah, “Peran Penyidik Dalam Penegakan Hukum Pembelaan Terpaksa (Noodweer) Dihubungkan Dengan Pasal 49 (1) KUHP Pada Perkara Kepolisian Polresta Serang Kota,” J. Law Nation, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 899–908, 2024.