Analysis of the Proof of the Element of "Premeditation" in Judgment Number 551/Pid.B/2025/PN RAP: A Review of the Judge's Considerations Regarding Evidence

Yovani Simarmata (University of HKBP Nommensen)
July Esther (University of HKBP Nommensen)
Jusnizar Sinaga (University of HKBP Nommensen)

Adagium: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum
Vol 4 No 2 (2026): Adagium: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum

This study analyzes proof of the element of premeditation (voorbedachte raad) in Judgment No. 551/Pid.B/2025/PN Rap. Because the offense and judgment occurred in 2025, the temporally applicable offense provision is Article 340 of the former Indonesian Criminal Code, while Article 459 of Law No. 1 of 2023, effective from 2 January 2026, is used only as a prospective comparison. Using normative legal research with statutory and case approaches, the article evaluates whether the facts described in the judgment demonstrate a calmly formed intent, a sufficient opportunity for reconsideration, and execution that was not merely an immediate emotional outburst. No fixed time interval is treated as determinative; premeditation must be inferred from the complete factual sequence and the court’s legal reasoning.