Kualifikasi Tindak Pidana Pencurian dalam Peristiwa Pascademonstrasi: Analisis Putusan Nomor 2489/Pid.B/2025/PN Sby

Penelitian ini membahas isu hukum mengenai ketepatan penerapan Pasal 363 KUHP terhadap perbuatan terdakwa dalam Putusan Nomor 2489/Pid.B/2025/PN Sby yang terjadi pasca-demonstrasi. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah menganalisis kesesuaian unsur pencurian dengan pemberatan berdasarkan fakta persidangan serta menentukan kualifikasi yuridis yang lebih tepat terhadap perbuatan terdakwa. Penelitian menggunakan metode hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus melalui kajian terhadap dakwaan, tuntutan, putusan hakim, serta doktrin hukum pidana. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa penerapan Pasal 363 KUHP belum sepenuhnya tepat karena unsur mengambil barang milik orang lain dengan maksud untuk dimiliki secara melawan hukum belum terbukti secara meyakinkan. Objek perkara berupa papan nama jalan sebagai fasilitas umum lebih menunjukkan adanya tindakan memindahkan, merusak, atau mengganggu fungsi barang daripada penguasaan permanen sebagaimana unsur pokok pencurian. Selain itu, konteks pasca-demonstrasi tidak otomatis dapat dijadikan dasar pemberatan tanpa pembuktian konkret mengenai hubungan keadaan tersebut dengan perbuatan terdakwa. Penelitian ini juga menemukan bahwa kesalahan kualifikasi delik berdampak pada pertanggungjawaban pidana dan tertutupnya ruang penyelesaian yang lebih proporsional, termasuk restorative justice. Oleh karena itu, penegakan hukum pidana harus menempatkan ketelitian pembuktian, asas pertanggungjawaban pribadi, dan keadilan substantif sebagai dasar utama penerapan norma pidana.

================================================================================================

This study discussed the legal issue regarding the appropriateness of the application of Article 363 of the Criminal Code to the defendant’s actions in Decision Number 2489/Pid.B/2025/PN Surabaya that occurred after the demonstration. The purpose of this study was to analyze the suitability of the elements of theft with the aggravating sanctions based on the trial facts and to determine the more appropriate legal qualifications for the defendant’s actions. The research used a normative legal method with a statutory approach and a case approach through a study of charges, demands, judges’ decisions, and criminal law doctrine. The results of the research showed that the application of Article 363 of the Criminal Code is not yet fully appropriate because the element of taking someone else’s property with the intention of possessing it unlawfully has not been convincingly proven. The object of the case, namely a street nameplate as a public facility, shows more of an act of moving, damaging, or disrupting the function of the goods rather than permanent control as the main element of theft. In addition, the post-demonstration context cannot automatically be used as a basis for aggravation without concrete evidence regarding the relationship between the circumstances and the defendant’s actions. This study also found that errors in the qualification of the offense have an impact on criminal responsibility and the closure of more proportional settlement space, including restorative justice. Therefore, criminal law enforcement must place the accuracy of evidence, the principle of personal responsibility, and substantive justice as the main basis for the application of criminal norms.