Implementation of

Criminal Law:
ATTEMPT (Poging)
inchoate offences

Nathalina Naibaho
Criminal Law Department
Faculty of Law, Universitas Indonesia 2021
 
Exam CODE A: Verdict Number 428/Pid.B/2018/PN.Btm

1. According the indictment by the Public Prosecutor in Verdict Number 428/Pid.B/2018/PN.Btm, Firstly: “the defendant
MUHAMMAD MARSEL Bin (Alm) DAENG PARTI together with SIKOCIK (fugitive) and ELDI (fugitive), takes property, wholly
or partially belonging to another, with intent to appropriate it unlawfully, that committed by two or more united persons,
whereby the defendant has forced an entrance into the place of the victim by breaking into the house, damaging or
climbing in, or using of false keys, false order, or false costume, if the intention of the defendant has revealed by a
commencement of the performance and the performance is not completed only becaue of circumstances independentent
of his will” under Article 363 para. (1) 4th, 5th of the Criminal Code J.o. Article 53 par. (1) of the Criminal Code. Secondly:
“the defendant MUHAMMAD MARSEL Bin (Alm) DAENG PARTI together with SIKOCIK (fugitive) and ELDI (fugitive),
unlawfully forcing other people to do, not to do or let something happen by force, or by any other act or by unpleasant
treatment or by threat of force against the victim or other person under article 335 par. (1). 1 st. Do you think such
indictment is correctly applied to the defendant? Which article is more suitable to be applied for this
case: Article 363 para. (1) 4th 5th or Article 335 para. (1) 1st? Give your description by explaining the
doctrine of intention and the doctrine of attempt including the legal basis of each doctrine.
2. The District Court of Batam in its Verdict Number 428/Pid.B/2018/PN.Btm states that Defendant MUHAMMAD MARSEL
Bin (Alm) DAENG PARTI was found guilty to commit an attempt of aggravated theft, under article 363 par. (1) 4th 5th j.o
article 53 Criminal Code. Has the judges correctly determined that the defendant was found guilty to
commit an attempt of aggravated theft? Have the judges, in this case, provided an adequate explanation
on the element of crime and attempt? What is your opinion about the length of punishment that is
imposed by the judges? Give your analysis by explaining the element of crime and the element of article
53 criminal code including different criminal doctrines that applicable in this case!
Verdict Number:125/Pid.B/2016/PN.SMP (PN Sumenep)
Defendant: BUSRIYANTO Bin SUMARBE

Mengingat Pasal 363 Ayat (1) ke-4, 5 KUHP Jo. Pasal 53 Ayat (1) KUHP dan
pasal-pasal serta peraturan perundang–undangan lain yang berkaitan
dengan perkara ini : MENGADILI: 1 Menyatakan Terdakwa BUSRIYANTO Bin
SUMARBE tersebut diatas, tidak terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan
bersalah melakukan tindak pidana sebagaimana dalam dakwaan Primair ; 2
Membebaskan terdakwa dari dakwaan tersebut diatas ; 3 Menyatakan
Terdakwa BUSRIYANTO Bin SUMARBE tersebut diatas, telah terbukti secara
sah dan meyakinkan bersalah melakukan tindak pidana “Percobaan
Pencurian Dengan Pemberatan“; 4 Menjatuhkan pidana kepada terdakwa
oleh karena itu dengan pidana penjara selama 2 (dua) tahun dan 10
(sepuluh) bulan ; 5 Menetapkan masa penangkapan dan penahanan yang
telah dijalani terdakwa dikurangkan seluruhnya dari pidana yang dijatuhkan ;
 ATTEMPTS (POGING)

• ARTICLE 53
(1) Any attempt to commit a crime is punishable, if the intention is evident from the
beginning of the execution. And the act is not concluded, but not because of his
own will.
(2) The maximum principal punishment imposed on the crime, in terms of the above
attempt, is reduced to a third of it.
(3) If such crime is subject to capital punishment or life imprisonment, such attempt is
subject to a maximum imprisonment of 15 years.
(4) Additional punishment for the attempt is similar to the completed crime.

• Article 54
Any attempt to commit a misdemeanor shall not be punishable.
 ATTEMPTS (POGING)
• “It is the beginning of an unfinished crime”
• It is not an offence, but it is prohibited and punishable by law
• It is an expansion of an offence’s definition
• An act is prohibited and punishable by law because the act violates legal interests, or
endanger legal interests
• The Penal Code does not provide any definition for it
• It should be identified when an offence is considered as completed
• Completed formal and material offences have different definitions
• In the definition of formal offences : an offence is completed when the prohibited act
has been committed
• In the definition of material offences : an offence is completed when the
consequences, which are prohibited and punishable by law, arise or occur.
Conditions for punishable attempts
• Intention
• The beginning of the execution
• The execution is not completed, but not by the perpetrator’s own will
INTENTION
“Voornemen”
• According to the doctrine and jurisprudence, intention shall be
interpreted as will
• A person shall have an intention, an intention to commit a crime
• Because here we have 3 kinds of intentional acts, do we have to
interpret them in general, or only in the first sense (as a purpose)?
Beginning of the Execution
• “The intention has been put into action with the beginning of the
excution”  een begin van uitvoering
• There must be an act (handeling)
• What does ”the act makes up the beginning of the execution” mean?
• The law does not define the execution and its forms
• Interpretation is necessary
Execution of Will or Execution of Crime?
• Grammatically, it should be connected with the preceding term, which is
“intention/will”  The intention has been put into the beginning of the
execution. So: the execution is interpreted as ”execution of will”  SUBJECTIVE
THEORY ON ATTEMPTS
• But, if it is connected with the following clause “… incompletion of the execution,
is not solely caused by his own will” systematically, it is interpreted as “execution
of a crime”  OBJECTIVE THEORY ON ATTEMPTS
A SAMPLE CASE
• A wanted to murder B. To execute his intention, A had to do several things, including :
• a. A went to a place that sell guns
• b. A bought a gun
• c. A brought the gun to his house
• d. A practiced shooting
• e. A prepared his gun by wrapping it tightly
• f. A went to B’s house
• g. When he arrived there, A loaded the gun
• h. A pointed the gun to B
• i. A fired a shot towards B
 WHICH ACTS MAKE UP THE EXECUTION?
IS EACH ACT IN THE CASE PUNISHABLE?

• 1. According to Subjective Theory on Attempts: action a is

already “the beginning of the execution” because it has
shown “a criminal intention”
• 2. According to Objective Theory on Attempts: actions a 
f are not “the beginning of the execution” because all of
those actions have yet to endanger B’s legal interests
Example
Attempted Murder
THE CASE
• A intended to murder B by putting a car bomb in B’s car.
The bomb exploded before B got into the car and it
made B seriously injured.
THE CHARGE
• Attempted murder under Article 340 in conjunction
with Article 53 of the Penal Code
MAXIMUM PENALTY
• 15 years of imprisonment (see article 53 paragraph 3)
 LIMITATION TO THE SUBJECTIVE THEORY

The acts are divided :

1. preparatory actions or acts  perbuatan persiapan (not punishable)
2. executory actions or acts  permulaan pelaksanaan (punishable)
The question :
which ones are “preparatory actions” and which ones are “executory
actions” ?
 EXPERTS’ OPINIONS ON THE ISSUE

1.Van Hamel : “if from the act, it can be proved that there is a strong will from the
perpetrator to execute his act”
2.Simons look from the types of the offences : whether it is a material or a formal
offence.
• Under the definition of formal offence, if the act is prohibited and punishable by
law, the it is part of prohibited acts; if there are several elements, commission of
an element is already sufficient.
• Under the definition of material offence, if the act is considered as an act, which
is as such by its nature, that is can immediately bring consequences prohibited
and punishable by law
3.Vos : there is “the beginning of the execution” if the act has a forbidden nature
against a legal interest.
4.Pompe : there is “the beginning of the execution” if an act, for a normal person,
provides an opportunity to allow an offence takes place.
 Hoge Raad’s Opinion

There is “the beginning of the execution,” if

between the act committed and the crime
intended by the person, a close and direct
connection is present; when a person takes action
to commit a crime, only then can the action is
considered as the beginning of the execution. If
besides such action, no other actions are necessary
to complete a crime.
Types of Attempts (Doctrines)

• The Perfect Attempts : Voleindigde Poging --> when a person

intends to commit a crime, he has done all acts needed to complete the crime,
but the crime is not completed because of something.

• Deferred Attempts : Geschorte Poging --> when a person intends to

commit a crime, he has done several acts needed to complete the crime, but
one requisite act is missing because he is hindered by something.

• Faulty Attempts : Ondeugdelijke Poging --> when a person intends

to commit a crime, he has done all acts needed to complete the crime, but he
does not succeed either because of the faulty tools (facilities) or faulty targets.
Faulty : absolute or relative
Percobaan Pasal 17-19 RUU KUHP
Pasal 17
(1) Percobaan melakukan Tindak Pidana terjadi jika niat pelaku telah nyata dari
adanya permulaan pelaksanaan dari Tindak Pidana yang dituju, tetapi
pelaksanaannya tidak selesai, tidak mencapai hasil, atau tidakmenimbulkan
akibat yang dilarang, bukan karena semata-mata atas kehendaknya sendiri.
(2) Permulaan pelaksanaan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) terjadi jika: a.
perbuatan yang dilakukan itu diniatkan atau ditujukan untuk terjadinya Tindak
Pidana; dan b. perbuatan yang dilakukan langsung berpotensi menimbulkan
Tindak Pidana yang dituju.
(3) Pidana untuk percobaan melakukan Tindak Pidana paling banyak 2/3 (dua per
tiga) dari maksimum ancaman pidana pokok untuk Tindak Pidana yang
bersangkutan.
(4) Percobaan melakukan Tindak Pidana yang diancamkan dengan pidana mati
atau pidana penjara seumur hidup dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling lama
15 (lima belas) tahun.
(5) Pidana tambahan untuk percobaan melakukan Tindak Pidana sama dengan
pidana tambahan untuk Tindak Pidana yang bersangkutan.
Percobaan Pasal 17-19 RUU KUHP
Pasal 18
(1) Percobaan melakukan Tindak Pidana tidak dipidana jika pelaku
setelah melakukan permulaan pelaksanaan sebagaimana
dimaksud dalam Pasal 17 ayat (1): a. tidak menyelesaikan
perbuatannya karena kehendaknya sendiri secara sukarela; atau b.
dengan kehendaknya sendiri mencegah tercapainya tujuan atau
akibat perbuatannya.
(2) Dalam hal percobaan sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1)
telah menimbulkan kerugian atau menurut peraturan perundang-
undangan telah merupakan Tindak Pidana tersendiri, pelaku dapat
dipertanggungjawabkan untuk Tindak Pidana tersebut.
Pasal 19: Percobaan melakukan Tindak Pidana yang hanya
diancam dengan pidana denda paling banyak kategori II tidak
dipidana.