C Criminal cases involving alternative indictments require the public prosecutor to exercise precision in determining the appropriate form of indictment based on the results of the investigation, the available evidence, and the possibility that more than one criminal provision may be fulfilled. this study aims to analyse the considerations of the public prosecutor in employing an alternative indictment, as well as the considerations of the court in selecting and setting aside alternative indictments in decision number 1145/pid.sus/2021/pn.tng, viewed from the perspective of the principle of adequate legal reasoning.this research employs a normative legal research method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials were analysed qualitatively.the findings indicate that the public prosecutor\\\'s use of an alternative indictment was consistent with the results of the investigation, the available evidence, and the provisions of article 143 paragraph (2) of the indonesian criminal procedure code. the court subsequently convicted the defendant under the second alternative indictment pursuant to article 296 of the indonesian criminal code, as it was supported by the facts established during the trial and admissible evidence. nevertheless, the court did not comprehensively explain its reasons for setting aside the other alternative indictments. consequently, the judgment does not fully reflect the principle of adequate legal reasoning.