Tapak Tuan Shari'a Court Decision No. 3 of 2016: Convicted Rapist Caned

On 20 February 2016 at around 7.00am, the victim, Hasni Binti Rusli, awoke at home in front of her television to see the accused, Juliyandi bin Ismail Sabi, watching television. At that time, her mother, Nurhayati, who had already made a cup of coffee for the accused, left for her roadside stall (warung). Hasni then went to her bedroom to get her pillow. The accused, who had followed her into her room, proceeded to lock the door behind him. He then fondled Hasni's breasts, despite her protestations, and told Hasni not to make any noise. The accused then forced Hasni onto her bed and began to rape her.

Hearing her daughter's screams, Nurhayati returned to the house to find Hasni crying. When Hasni told her mother what had happened, Nurhayati entered the room to find the accused pretending to sleep on her daughter's mattress. Hasni and Nurhayati reported the incident to police.

A medical report produced in court showed that Hasni's hymen had been torn in two places as a result of the conduct of the accused. The court found that the conduct of the accused met the requirements for rape for the purposes of arts 48 and 1(30) of Qanun No. 6 of 2014 on Criminal Law. The prosecution submitted that a suitable punishment was 150 months (12 and a half years) imprisonment, while the defence requested that the court prescribe the most lenient caning punishment available to it. The court ordered that the accused be caned 125 times, minus time already served. The court did not, however, stipulate the number of times the accused would actually be caned.

The court identified as incriminating matters the following:

  1. that the accused, as a Muslim, should have upheld the values of Islamic shari'a being enforced in the province of Aceh;
  2. that the conduct of the accused did not accord with the government's program to eradicate criminal sexual violence;
  3. that the conduct of the accused is detrimental to society;
  4. that the conduct of the accused traumatised the victim;
  5. that the accused was deliberately convoluted in providing the court information; and
  6. that the accused did not confess to the alleged conduct.

The court also acknowledged the following as mitigatory factors:

  1. that the accused was courteous in court;
  2. that the accused regretted his actions;
  3. that the accused stated he would not re-offend;
  4. that the accused had no criminal record; and
  5. that the accused had a wife and child for whom to provide.
FirstPreviousPage 1 of of 25NextLast