<![CDATA[The crime of premeditated murder accompanied by mutilation represents an exceptionally cruel form of crime against human life, causing widespread social unrest. Nevertheless, positive criminal law in Indonesia has not regulated mutilation as an independent offense. This study aims to analyze the application of substantive criminal law regarding mutilation associated with premeditated murder, analyze the judge’s legal considerations in sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment despite the Public Prosecutor's demand for the death penalty, and review the verdict from the perspective of Islamic Law. This study employs a normative legal research method, using statutory, case, and conceptual approaches, and analyzes the Kediri District Court Decision No. 67/Pid.B/2025/PN Kdr as the primary object of analysis. The findings indicate that: (1) The application of Article 340 of the Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) was proven legally and convincingly, where mutilation was positioned as an aggravating fact reinforcing elements of intent and premeditation; (2) The judicial reasoning for imposing life imprisonment instead of the death penalty was based on comprehensive juridical, philosophical, and sociological considerations, reflecting judicial independence, the prudential principle, and the application of combined punishment theory (verenigings theorie); (3) From an Islamic Law perspective, the defendant's act is categorized as qatl al-'amd (intentional murder), violating the principle of hifz al-nafs (protection of life) and the prohibition of desecrating human remains. The sentence of life imprisonment is justified as a form of ta'zir aimed at achieving public interest (maslahah 'ammah) and social protection.]]>
