Borobudur Law and Society Journal

Courts often treat reconciliation between offender and victim as a reason to reduce a sentence for assault, yet the conditions under which it should count are seldom examined. This study analyses the judicial reasoning in Medan High Court Decision No 1388/PID/2023/PT MDN, an appeal in a case of assault and destruction of a car, to determine how the elements of Articles 351(1) and 406(1) of the Criminal Code were applied and whether the grounds for reducing the sentence were sound. It is normative research using statutory and case approaches, read against the purposes of punishment and the guidelines on restorative justice. The first-instance court imposed one year and six months’ imprisonment and restitution of IDR 52,382,200; the High Court convicted on both offences yet reduced the prison term to one year, citing the victim’s arrival at about 02.30 and a reconciliation after the event. Neither ground withstands scrutiny. The victim’s arrival was not provocation, and the reconciliation was arranged at the defendant’s house on the initiative of his father, a police officer later convicted for his own part in the incident, so it cannot be presumed voluntary. Reconciliation should mitigate a sentence only when the court is satisfied that it was free, informed and accompanied by real reparation.