[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-id-113":3,"doc-seo-228278-113":53,"doc-detail-228278-id":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,17,21,25,29,33,37,41,45,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},55,"Document","Agama & Spiritualitas",60,"religion-spirituality",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":16},48,"Cerita & Novel","story-novel",{"id":18,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":19,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":20},56,"Gaya Hidup","lifestyle",{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":23,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":24},51,"Komik","comic",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":27,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":28},53,"Layanan Kesehatan","healthcare",{"id":30,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":32},54,"Penelitian & Laporan","research-report",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":36},49,"Sastra","literature",{"id":38,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":39,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":40},52,"Teknologi","technology",{"id":42,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":43,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":44},50,"Ujian","exam",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":47,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":48},57,"Umum","general",{"id":50,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},181,"Formulir","formulir",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":120,"head_meta":122,"extra_data":124,"updated_unix":126},113,"id","investigative-authority-to-conduct-autopsies-in-homicide-cases-case-study-of-the-bojonegoro-district-court-decision-no-230pidsus2024pn-bjn","Kewenangan Penyidik Dalam Melakukan Otopsi Pada Perkara Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan - Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Bojonegoro Nomor 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn","","Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis kewenangan penyidik dalam melakukan otopsi pada perkara tindak pidana pembunuhan serta menelusuri penyebab tidak dilaksanakannya otopsi dalam Putusan Nomor 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn. Otopsi sebagai bagian dari visum et repertum forensik berperan menentukan sebab kematian dan membuktikan unsur tindak pidana, sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 133 dan 134 KUHAP. Metode yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan studi kasus. Hasil menunjukkan penyidik secara normatif berwenang penuh meminta otopsi, namun dalam perkara tersebut pembuktian dipenuhi melalui resume medis, penolakan tindakan medis, CCTV, dan bukti obat-obatan; hakim menilai alat bukti cukup memenuhi ambang minimum KUHAP.",{"@graph":63,"@context":119},[64,81,102],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,72,75,78],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":71},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":73,"name":9,"@type":70,"position":74},"https://docshare.wps.com/id/document/",2,{"item":76,"name":31,"@type":70,"position":77},"https://docshare.wps.com/id/document/penelitian-laporan/",3,{"item":79,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":80},"https://docshare.wps.com/id/document/investigative-authority-to-conduct-autopsies-in-homicide-cases-case-study-of-the-bojonegoro-district-court-decision-no-230pidsus2024pn-bjn/228278/",4,{"url":79,"name":59,"@type":82,"image":83,"author":88,"headline":59,"publisher":91,"fileFormat":94,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":95,"datePublished":96,"encodingFormat":94,"isAccessibleForFree":97,"interactionStatistic":98},"DigitalDocument",{"url":84,"@type":85,"width":86,"height":87},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/investigative-authority-to-conduct-autopsies-in-homicide-cases-case-study-of-the-bojonegoro-district-court-decision-no-230pidsus2024pn-bjn/228278.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":89,"@type":90},"Oliver","Person",{"url":68,"name":92,"@type":93},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-25","2026-09-10",true,{"@type":99,"interactionType":100,"userInteractionCount":77},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":101},"ViewAction",{"@type":103,"mainEntity":104},"FAQPage",[105,111,115],{"name":106,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":108},"Apa dasar hukum kewenangan penyidik untuk meminta otopsi dalam perkara pembunuhan?","Question",{"text":109,"@type":110},"Dasarnya terdapat pada ketentuan KUHAP, khususnya Pasal 133 dan 134, yang menempatkan otopsi sebagai bagian dari visum et repertum forensik untuk membuktikan sebab kematian dan unsur tindak pidana.","Answer",{"name":112,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":113},"Mengapa otopsi tidak dilakukan dalam Putusan Nomor 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn?",{"text":114,"@type":110},"Penyidikan tidak melaksanakan otopsi dan memilih memenuhi kebutuhan pembuktian melalui resume medis, surat penolakan tindakan medis, rekaman CCTV, serta bukti obat-obatan terkait, dengan pertimbangan kecukupan alat bukti dan efisiensi proses.",{"name":116,"@type":107,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Bagaimana majelis hakim menilai kecukupan pembuktian meskipun otopsi tidak dilaksanakan?",{"text":118,"@type":110},"Majelis hakim menilai alat bukti yang diajukan telah memenuhi batas minimum pembuktian menurut KUHAP sehingga perkara tetap dapat diputus.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":79,"og:type":121,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":92,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":123,"canonical":79},"index,follow",{"doc_id":125,"site_id":56},228278,1789024105,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":128},{"doc_id":125,"user_id":129,"nickname":89,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":4,"category_id":30,"category_name":31,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":77,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":71,"is_downloadable":71,"audit_status":71,"page_count":136,"language":137,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":138,"faqs":139,"seo_title":140,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":126,"read_time":141},8796095461610,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Kewenangan Penyidik Dalam Melakukan Otopsi Pada Perkara Tindak  \nPidana Pembunuhan  \n(Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Bojonegoro Nomor 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn)  \nFadya Amalya Aza1, Tri Astuti Handayani2, Bukhari Yasin3  \n1,2,3Fakultas Hukum Universitas Bojonegoro  \nKoresponden Email: [famalya63@gmail.com](famalya63@gmail.com)  \nAbstract  \nThis study aims to analyze the investigative authority to conduct autopsies in homicide cases and to identify the reasons why an autopsy was not carried out in Decision No. 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn. An autopsy, as part of a visum et repertum, plays a crucial role in determining the cause of death and establishing the elements of a criminal act, as regulated under Articles 133 and 134 of the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) . However, in practice, not all cases involving unnatural deaths undergo autopsy procedures, raising issues regarding the fulfilment of scientific evidentiary standards and the implementation of investigative authority. This research employs a normative legal method using statute, conceptual, and case approaches to examine Decision No. 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn. The legal materials consist of primary sources in the form of legislation and court decisions, as well as secondary materials derived from relevant legal literature. The analysis was conducted qualitatively to evaluate the conformity of investigative actions with procedural criminal law. The findings indicate that, normatively, investigators have full authority to request an autopsy as part of a forensic visum et repertum to prove homicide. However, in Decision No. 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn, investigators did not conduct an autopsy and instead relied on a medical resume, a medical treatment refusal form, CCTV footage, and confiscated abortion-related drugs to fulfil the evidentiary requirements. This decision was based on practical considerations of evidentiary sufficiency and procedural efficiency, despite not fully aligning with the ideal standards for investigating unnatural deaths. Nevertheless, the panel of judges considered the available evidence sufficient to meet the minimum evidentiary threshold under KUHAP, allowing the case to be adjudicated. These findings highlight the need for consistent implementation of autopsy procedures in unnatural death investigations to ensure scientific accuracy, strengthen evidentiary value, and uphold the principle of material truth in the criminal justice system.  \nKeywords: investigative authority, autopsy, visum et repertum, homicide, criminal evidence.  \nAbstrak  \nPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis kewenangan penyidik dalam melakukan otopsi pada perkara tindak pidana pembunuhan serta mengidentifikasi penyebab tidak dilaksanakannya otopsi dalam Putusan Nomor 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn. Otopsi sebagai salah satu bentuk visum et repertum memiliki peran penting dalam membuktikan sebab kematian dan unsur-unsur tindak pidana, sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 133 dan 134 KUHAP. Namun, dalam praktiknya, tidak semua perkara kematian tidak wajar memperoleh tindakan otopsi, sehingga menimbulkan persoalan mengenai pemenuhan standar pembuktian ilmiah dan implementasi kewenangan penyidik. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual, serta studi kasus terhadap Putusan Nomor 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn. Sumber bahan hukum terdiri dari bahan hukum primer  \nberupa peraturan perundang-undangan dan putusan pengadilan, serta bahan hukum sekunder berupaliteratur yang relevan. Analisis dilakukan secara kualitatif untuk menilai kesesuaian tindakan penyidik dengan ketentuan hukum acara pidana. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa secara normatif penyidikmemiliki kewenangan penuh untuk meminta otopsi sebagai bagian dari visum et repertum forensik gunamembuktikan tindak pidana pembunuhan. Namun, dalam perkara Nomor 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn, penyidik tidak melaksanakan otopsi dan justru mengandalkan resume medis, sur","cbCaiub66KL39qoX","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiub66KL39qoX","pdf",353158,14,"Indonesian","# A. Pendahuluan\n## Peran penyidik dan kewenangan menurut KUHAP\n## Otopsi dalam pembuktian tindak pidana pembunuhan\n# B. Rumusan Masalah\n## Kewenangan penyidik untuk otopsi\n## Alasan tidak dilaksanakannya otopsi pada putusan yang ditelaah\n# C. Metode Penelitian\n## Pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual\n## Studi kasus Putusan Nomor 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn\n# D. Pembahasan\n## Kesesuaian kewenangan dengan standar visum et repertum\n## Pertimbangan kecukupan alat bukti oleh majelis hakim\n# E. Kesimpulan dan Saran\n## Implikasi konsistensi pelaksanaan otopsi","[{\"question\":\"Apa dasar hukum kewenangan penyidik untuk meminta otopsi dalam perkara pembunuhan?\",\"answer\":\"Dasarnya terdapat pada ketentuan KUHAP, khususnya Pasal 133 dan 134, yang menempatkan otopsi sebagai bagian dari visum et repertum forensik untuk membuktikan sebab kematian dan unsur tindak pidana.\"},{\"question\":\"Mengapa otopsi tidak dilakukan dalam Putusan Nomor 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn?\",\"answer\":\"Penyidikan tidak melaksanakan otopsi dan memilih memenuhi kebutuhan pembuktian melalui resume medis, surat penolakan tindakan medis, rekaman CCTV, serta bukti obat-obatan terkait, dengan pertimbangan kecukupan alat bukti dan efisiensi proses.\"},{\"question\":\"Bagaimana majelis hakim menilai kecukupan pembuktian meskipun otopsi tidak dilaksanakan?\",\"answer\":\"Majelis hakim menilai alat bukti yang diajukan telah memenuhi batas minimum pembuktian menurut KUHAP sehingga perkara tetap dapat diputus.\"}]","Kewenangan Penyidik Dalam Melakukan Otopsi Pada Perkara Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan - Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Bojonegoro Nomor 230/Pid.Sus/2024/PN Bjn | PDF",22]