Un coup de fusil tiré de la hanche à bout portant sème le doute sur l'intention de tuer คำพิพากษาฎีกาที่ 361/2532: ยิงปืนลูกซองจากระดับเอวในระยะใกล้ ยังไม่พอฟังว่ามีเจตนาฆ่า

DÉCISION DE LA COUR SUPRÊME N° 361/2532
Année : 1989 (BE 2532)
Articles de loi pertinents : Code criminel, article(s) 59, 80, 288

RÉSUMÉ
The complainant is the wife of the defendant's nephew. They quarrelled in the early afternoon; the defendant went up to the house, came down carrying a long shotgun, and one round was discharged which struck the base of a mango tree behind her and to her right. She was not hit. Both lower courts convicted of attempted murder and imposed ten years. The Supreme Court found the case left room for doubt on the only issue that mattered, which was intent. At that range a shotgun fired deliberately would not have missed; on the complainant's own evidence the defendant held it in both hands at waist level and never raised it to aim; the investigating officer measured the strike on the tree at about a foot above the ground, a line that would not have reached a vital part even had it connected; and the complainant said the defendant was in the habit of brandishing firearms at people. The doubt was resolved in the defendant's favour and the charge dismissed.

FAITS DE L'AFFAIRE
The defendant came down from his house holding a long shotgun during a quarrel with the injured party, his nephew's wife, and the gun discharged once. The charge struck the base of a mango tree to her right and behind her; she was not hit. The two were standing about 5 wa apart, roughly 10 metres. She accepted that he had held the gun in both hands at waist level rather than raising it to aim.

DÉCISION DU TRIBUNAL
L'accusé avait l'habitude d'utiliser des armes à feu pour proférer des menaces. Le tribunal a appliqué le principe du bénéfice du doute en sa faveur, établissant que le simple fait de tirer avec une arme à feu ne prouve pas automatiquement l'intention de tuer.

ANALYSE JURIDIQUE
An acquittal on the facts, and the reasoning is the ordinary one about the gap between a shot fired and a shot aimed. The shotgun discharged once during a quarrel and the pellets struck the base of a mango tree behind where the complainant was standing.

At that range a person who meant to hit her would have hit her. The Court drew the inference the other way and gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Firing a weapon in someone's direction is not, without more, proof of intent to kill, and the physical position of the strike is usually what decides it.

IMPLICATIONS PRATIQUES
This is the case on the other side of the same question, and it shows what raises a doubt. The shot was fired at close range with a long shotgun and missed. The complainant's own evidence was that the defendant held the gun in both hands at waist level and never raised it to aim; the investigating officer measured the strike on the mango tree at about a foot above the ground, a line that would not have reached a vital part even had it connected; and the complainant said he was in the habit of brandishing firearms at people. Together those left the court unable to be sure of an intent to kill, and the doubt went to the defendant. The details that decided it were physical and were recorded by the investigator at the scene.

---
Note : Ceci est un résumé en anglais du jugement original thaïlandais.
Pour le texte thaï officiel, veuillez vous référer à la version thaï ci-dessus.
ou visitez deka.supremecourt.or.th.