Criminal Liability for Murder Mutilation in Indonesia

Abstract

Murder accompanied by mutilation raises a distinct problem of criminal liability and sentencing because Indonesian criminal law punishes the taking of life but does not formulate mutilation as an independent homicide offense or as an expressly enumerated aggravating circumstance. This study analyzes the normative position of mutilation in homicide, the construction of criminal liability, and the direction of criminal-law reform after the National Criminal Code entered into force on 2 January 2026. It employs normative legal research using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary legal materials include the 1945 Constitution, Law Number 1 of 1946 on Criminal Law Regulations, Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code as adjusted by Law Number 1 of 2026, and Kediri District Court Decision Number 67/Pid.B/2025/PN Kdr. Secondary materials include Indonesian criminal-law scholarship and international forensic studies on criminal dismemberment. The study finds that liability for mutilation homicide remains anchored in the elements of murder or premeditated murder; mutilation cannot automatically substitute for proof of intent or premeditation. In Decision Number 67/Pid.B/2025/PN Kdr, the court separately established intentional killing and treated the dismemberment and dispersal of the victim’s body as aggravating circumstances when imposing life imprisonment. International studies further demonstrate that dismemberment may serve defensive purposes, such as concealment and body disposal, or offensive purposes reflecting extraordinary aggression, making its legal meaning context-dependent. The novelty of this study lies in distinguishing the evidentiary role of mutilation from its sentencing role, assessing the 2025 decision against the post-2026 National Criminal Code framework, and proposing explicit criteria for mutilation as a statutory aggravating circumstance. Such formulation is preferable to automatically treating every mutilation homicide as premeditated murder because it strengthens legal certainty and proportionality while preserving independent proof of each offense element.