The role of forensic evidence in Indonesia's criminal justice

Abstract

This study aims, first, to analyse the position of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process in Indonesia; and second, to examine the extent to which forensic evidence is effectively employed as a basis of proof by judges and public prosecutors in the criminal justice process in Indonesia. This study was conducted in two stages, namely a doctrinal analysis of legal regulations in Indonesia and an empirical study through the collection of court decisions betwen January 2023 and December 2024 from four district courts representing three regions of Indonesia. The role of forensic evidence in Indonesian criminal procedure remains problematic owing to the absence of explicit regulation. At present, it is not formally recognised as a distinct evidentiary category under the Criminal Procedure Code, but rather subsumed under expert testimony, documentary evidence, or indications as stipulated in Article 184. This ambiguity diminishes the attention given by law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges to the probative value of forensic science. Data from four district courts between January 2023 and December 2024 show that there are five categories of cases with the highest percentages decided on the basis of forensic evidence, namely narcotics offences (96.26%), assault (94.61%), firearms and sharp weapons offences (92.08%), electronic information and transactions offences (72.63%), and corruption (59.38%). It is therefore recommended that forensic evidence be specifically classified as an independent category of evidence within Indonesian criminal procedural law, in order to strengthen objectivity, enhance fairness, and ensure a more reliable criminal justice system.

Access to Document

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Open Access Version Available

Fingerprint