Article 69: Excess of necessity or defence
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในกรณีที่บัญญัติไว้ในมาตรา ๖๗ และมาตรา ๖๘ นั้น ถ้าผู้กระทำได้กระทำไปเกินสมควรแก่เหตุ หรือเกินกว่ากรณีแห่งความจำเป็น หรือเกินกว่ากรณีแห่งการจำต้องกระทำเพื่อป้องกัน ศาลจะลงโทษน้อยกว่าที่กฎหมายกำหนดไว้สำหรับความผิดนั้นเพียงใดก็ได้ แต่ถ้าการกระทำนั้นเกิดขึ้นจากความตื่นเต้น ความตกใจ หรือความกลัว ศาลจะไม่ลงโทษผู้กระทำก็ได้
English translation
In the cases provided in Section 67 and Section 68, if the doer has acted beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances, or beyond the case of necessity, or beyond the case of what was required for defence, the Court may inflict a punishment less than that provided by law for such offence to any extent. But if that act occurred out of excitement, fright, or fear, the Court may impose no punishment at all.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 69 sets the consequences when the proportionality limits of Section 67 (necessity) and Section 68 (self-defence) are exceeded. Excess defeats the full excuse or justification but does not restore the ordinary penalty: the court retains discretion to reduce punishment below the statutory minimum to any extent. The second limb is a special mercy rule: where the excess arose from excitement, fright, or fear, a state readily present when a person is suddenly attacked, the court may impose no punishment at all. In homicide cases, this is why a defendant who defended himself but went too far is commonly convicted of killing by excessive defence yet sentenced well below the range for ordinary murder. The section is thus the sentencing bridge between full acquittal under Section 68 and a normal conviction.
Why this matters in practice
Section 69 is the fallback when a self-defence or necessity plea does not fully succeed: even a defendant who went beyond reasonable limits can secure a sentence far below the statutory range. The most powerful version is the fright-or-fear limb, which can lead to no punishment at all where the overreaction was driven by sudden alarm, a realistic outcome where the accused was genuinely attacked first. In practice, the defence should run Section 68 (acquittal) and Section 69 (excess mitigation) together, so that failing on proportionality still yields a heavily reduced sentence. Framing the panic or fear evidence carefully is decisive, and early legal advice should address both limbs.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4328/2565 (2022)
Section 69 applies to the cases provided in Section 67 (necessity) and Section 68 (lawful defence), where the doer acted beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances, beyond the case of necessity, or beyond what was required for defence: the court may then impose a punishment less than that provided by law to any extent, and may impose no punishment at all where the excess arose out of excitement, fright or fear. A defendant who cannot claim lawful defence at all takes no benefit from Section 69, and is convicted of the offence in its ordinary form.
The defendant stabbed the second deceased several times, then turned back and stabbed the first, who was sitting astride a motorcycle and had done nothing to help the other or to attack him. The Supreme Court held the two stabbings were distinct offences with separable intent, and that the defendant could not claim lawful defence under Section 68 at all. Section 69, which mitigates only defence carried too far, therefore had no part to play, and the conviction under Section 288 was upheld.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 1062/2563 (2020)
Killing that exceeds what was necessary for defence is an offence of killing by excess of defence under Section 69, punishable below the statutory level.
The trial court convicted the defendant of killing another by exceeding what was necessary for defence, applying Section 288 with Section 69, and imposed a reduced term of imprisonment. The case shows Section 69 operating to lower the sentence where defence went beyond necessity.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 203 Supreme Court decisions (1959 to 2025)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Décision 7400/2568 (2025)
- Decision 1062/2563 (2020)
- Decision 1597/2562 (2019)
- Décision 2226/2562 (2019)
- Decision 10492/2559 (2016)
- Decision 10879/2556 (2013)
- Decision 2812/2556 (2013)
- Decision 7650/2553 (2010)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Le plus souvent cité aux côtés de
- Article 288 170
- Article 78 89
- Article 68 69
- Article 80 53
- Article 91 49
- Article 33 39
Sections qui apparaissent le plus souvent dans les mêmes jugements que celui-ci. Le chiffre correspond au nombre de décisions.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
Et si je m'étais défendu, mais que j'étais allé trop loin ?
L'article 69 s'applique. Vous perdez l'excuse complète prévue à l'article 68, mais le tribunal peut imposer une peine inférieure au niveau légal dans toute la mesure où cela est possible, et si l'excès est dû à l'excitation, à la frayeur ou à la peur, il peut n'imposer aucune peine.
L'abus de légitime défense peut-il aboutir à l'impunité ?
Oui, dans un cas précis. En vertu de l'article 69, si l'excès est survenu sous le coup de l'excitation, de la frayeur ou de la peur, le tribunal a le pouvoir discrétionnaire de ne prononcer aucune sanction.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Penal Code, s. 69 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Penal Code (Thailand), s. 69. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-69/ (accessed 30 août 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.อ. มาตรา 69 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-69/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-69/"><p>In the cases provided in Section 67 and Section 68, if the doer has acted beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances, or beyond the case of necessity, or beyond the case of what was required for defence, the Court may inflict a punishment less…</p><footer>Penal Code, s. 69 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-penal-code/section-69/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.