 |
| Illustration |
The Fatal Journey to Indramayu
According to investigators, the events that followed the alleged assault inside the family home became the most critical stage of the case.
Rather than contacting emergency medical services or taking the injured boy to a hospital, police allege that Rauf was removed from the residence during the early hours of Wednesday, October 4, 2023, while he was still alive.
Based on witness testimony, investigative findings, and statements presented by law enforcement, Nurhani allegedly decided to transport her injured son away from the village. Prosecutors later argued that the decision was made in an effort to permanently remove what they described as a family burden rather than to seek medical assistance.
Investigators said Nurhani borrowed a motorcycle from a neighbor shortly after midnight. With the assistance of her younger brother, Sugiyanto, Rauf's injured body was allegedly placed on the motorcycle. Police maintain that his hands remained tied behind his back as the journey began.
Authorities reconstructed the route using witness interviews, physical evidence, and investigative findings. The motorcycle reportedly traveled across the border between Subang Regency and Indramayu Regency, covering a distance of several dozen kilometers during the early morning hours when traffic was minimal.
Investigators believe the destination was a relatively isolated irrigation canal near Blok Sukatani, in Anjatan District, Indramayu Regency.
According to the prosecution, after arriving at the canal bridge, Nurhani allegedly pushed or threw Rauf into the water before immediately leaving the scene. Police stated that no attempt was made to rescue him or seek assistance after he entered the canal.
One of the central questions in the investigation was whether Rauf had already died before entering the water.
The answer came from the forensic examination.
According to forensic specialists at Bhayangkara Hospital, the victim had sustained multiple blunt-force injuries, particularly to the head and face. However, medical examiners concluded that those injuries, while severe, were not the immediate cause of death.
Instead, the autopsy determined that Rauf died from asphyxia caused by drowning.
Forensic experts reported finding water and mud inside the victim's respiratory tract, evidence indicating that he was still breathing after entering the irrigation canal. This finding became one of the prosecution's most significant pieces of evidence because it established that the victim was alive when he entered the water.
Investigators further concluded that Rauf's chances of survival were severely limited because his hands had allegedly been bound behind his back. Unable to swim, grasp nearby objects, or free himself, the 13-year-old had virtually no opportunity to escape the water once he entered the canal.
The forensic findings fundamentally shaped the direction of the criminal case.
Had Rauf died inside the residence, investigators noted, the legal analysis would likely have focused primarily on the alleged assault. Instead, the autopsy suggested that the fatal injury occurred later, during the abandonment in the irrigation canal. Prosecutors therefore argued that the sequence of events reflected a deliberate progression from physical violence to actions allegedly intended to ensure the victim's death.
The medical evidence also reinforced investigators' reconstruction of the timeline, linking the injuries sustained inside the house with the subsequent transportation of the victim and the eventual discovery of his body several hours later in neighboring Indramayu.
These findings would soon be supported by physical evidence collected from both crime scenes, allowing investigators to connect the alleged assault in Subang with the recovery of Rauf's body approximately 40 kilometers away.