Witnesses Presented by Legal Counsel Say None Know Who Owns SHM 05/Lemo.
TANGERANG, INTERNASIONALPOS.COM.
Three witnesses presented by Charlie Chandra’s legal team at the follow-up hearing of the alleged forgery of land certificates against defendant Charlie Candra.
Held again at the Tangerang Class 1A District Court, testified that none of them confirmed the exact ownership of the land with SHM 05/Lemo certificate on Tuesday (July 22, 2025).
Next, the Public Prosecutor (JPU) examined the testimony of Selur (one of the witnesses presented by legal counsel). He admitted to knowing Sumita Candra while harvesting in the pond because their houses are nearby.
However, regarding the land ownership rights or land title, which are the subject of the case, he claimed to have never heard any conversation with Sumita Candra.
When asked if he had ever seen the SHM 05/Lemo certificate, Selur answered no. He also did not know who managed or maintained Sumita Candra’s land after the pond fell into disrepair.
“There’s no one guarding the house anymore. The last one was Mr. Uchay, but I don’t know what year,” he said.
The prosecutor then delved into the relationship between Yanto Chandra, Paul Chandra, and Sumita Candra, but Selur claimed not to know or be aware of their relationship.
Regarding the criminal verdict involving Sumita Candra, Selur stated she was unaware of it, having only lived there since 2009.
Next, the prosecutor asked witnesses Zaini and Khairum where they lived in 2000. Witness Khairum replied that his father had lived in Lemo since 1989.
However, when asked whether they were aware of any cases or land related to the 1993 criminal verdict between 1989 and 2007, the witness said he didn’t know.
The prosecutor then touched on The Pit Nyo, a figure mentioned in connection with the case.
“How do you know the name The Pit Nyo?” asked the prosecutor. The witness replied, “I only found out recently.”
Khairum was again asked whether he knew Charlie Candra personally or had ever been to his house.
He replied that Charlie had never been there, but he knew that Charlie Candra was Sumita Candra’s son because he often saw them together at the pond.
“Charlie Candra often went to the pond with Sumita Candra,” Khairum said.
However, when asked about the current condition of the pond, the witness admitted he didn’t know for sure, only that it was now occupied by PIK.
“I don’t know (what happened), but PIK occupied it,” Khairum said.
It should be noted that three witnesses presented by the defendant’s legal team were present to testify during the trial. They were Zaini (female), Khairum (female), and Selur (male).
(trisno).
