ANALISIS PUTUSAN HAKIM PENGADILAN NEGERI KUALA SIMPANG NOMOR 202/PID.SUS/2015/PN.KSP DIKAITKAN PASAL 80 AYAT (3) JO. AYAT (4) UU PERLINDUNGAN ANAK

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGE'S VERDICT OF THE KUALA SIMPANG DISTRICT COURT VERDICT NUMBER 202/PID.SUS/2015/PN.KSP RELATED TO ARTICLE 80 SECTION (3) JO. SECTION (4) CHILD PROTECTION LAW

KDRT yang dilakukan terhadap ibu hamil dapat berdampak pada gugurnya anak dalam kandungan. Pasal 44 ayat (2) UU PKDRT mengatur ancaman pidana atas tindak kekerasan fisik dalam lingkup rumah tangga yang berakibat luka berat, dimana kategori luka berat mengacu Pasal 90 KUHP , termasuk gugurnya kandungan. KDRT pada ibu hamil dapat berakibat pada dua korban kekerasan, yaitu ibu dan anak dalam kandungan. Perlindungan hukum yang tepat diperlukan untuk mengakomodasi hak hidup anak dalam kandungan yang mati akibat kekerasan fisik. UU Perlindungan Anak meskipun tidak mengatur detail, namun memberikan perlindungan hukum atas anak dalam kandungan, terkhusus Pasal 76C yaitu norma larangan atas kekerasan terhadap anak. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menganalisis dan mengetahui dapat atau tidaknya gugur kandungan akibat KDRT disamakan dengan luka berat sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 90 KUHP, dan Pasal 44 UU PKDRT tentang kekerasan fisik dalam lingkup rumah tangga apa sudah sesuai dengan Pasal 80 UU Perlindungan Anak. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual, dan pendekatan kasus pada putusan PN Kuala Simpang No. 202/Pid.sus/2015/PN.Ksp. Bahan hukum yang digunakan yaitu primer dan sekunder. Teknik analisis menggunakan metode preskriptif untuk menganalisis kasus tersebut. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa peristiwa gugurnya kandungan perempuan serta pendarahan yang dialami ibu hamil akibat KDRT dalam Putusan PN Kuala Simpang No. 202/Pid.sus/2015/PN.KSP dapat disamakan dengan Luka Berat Pasal 90 KUHP. Namun, anak dalam kandungan yang mati akibat KDRT tidak dapat serta merta disamakan dengan Luka Berat pada Pasal 90 KUHP. Selain melanggar Pasal 44 ayat (2) UU PKDRT, juga melanggar Pasal 80 ayat (3) dan ayat (4) jo. Pasal 76C UU Perlindungan Anak. Kemudian, Pasal 44 UU PKDRT tidak sesuai dengan Pasal 80 UU Perlindungan Anak. Perbuatan pelaku (SM) termasuk konkursus idealis yaitu kekerasan terhadap istri berakibat luka berat serta kekerasan terhadap anak dalam kandungan berakibat kematian, sebab terdapat hubungan kausalitas di antara keduanya.

Kata kunci: KDRT, kekerasan fisik, luka berat, gugur kandungan, perlindungan anak 

Domestic violence that is carried out on pregnant women can have an impact on the death of fetus or the child in the womb. Article 44 paragraph (2) of the PKDRT Law regulates the threat of punishment for acts of physical violence within the scope of the household which result in serious injury, where the category of serious injuries refers to Article 90 of the Criminal Code, including the pregnancy loss. Domestic violence on pregnant woman can cause two victims of violence, namely the mother and the child in the womb. Appropriate legal protection is needed to accommodate the right to life of children in the womb who die cause the physical violence. Although the Child Protection Law does not provide details, it provides legal protection for children in the womb, especially Article 76C, namely the prohibition norms for violence against children. The purpose of this research is to analyze and find out whether a pregnancy loss due to domestic violence can be equated with a serious injury as regulated in Article 90 of the Criminal Code, and whether Article 44 of the PKDRT Law on physical violence in the household sphere is in accordance with Article 80 of the Child Protection Law. This research is a normative legal research using a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, and a case approach to the Kuala Simpang District Court Verdict Number 202 / Pid.sus / 2015 / PN.Ksp. The legal materials used are primary and secondary. The analysis technique uses a prescriptive method to analyze the case. The results of this study indicate that the incidence of the abortion of a woman's womb and bleeding experienced by pregnant women due to domestic violence in the Kuala Simpang District Court Verdict Number 202/Pid.sus /2015/PN.KSP can be equated with Serious Injury Article 90 of the Criminal Code. However, a child in the womb who dies as a result of domestic violence cannot necessarily be equated with serious injuries in Article 90 of the Criminal Code. Apart from violating Article 44 paragraph (2) of the PKDRT Law, it also violates Article 80 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) jo. Article 76C of the Child Protection Law. Then, Article 44 of the PKDRT Law is not in accordance with Article 80 of the Child Protection Law. The actions of the perpetrator (SM) include an concursus idealist, namely that violence against the wife results in serious injury and violence against the child in the womb results in death, because there is a causal relationship between the two.

Keywords: domestic violence, physical violence, serious injury, pregnancy loss, child protection