Repeated blunt force trauma to a vital area such as the head ตีศีรษะผู้ตายด้วยด้ามมีดเหล็กโดยแรงนานถึง 2 ชั่วโมง ย่อมเล็งเห็นผลว่าผู้ตายจะถึงแก่ความตาย เป็นการฆ่าโดยเจตนาตามมาตรา 288 ประกอบมาตรา 59 ความเชื่อเรื่องผีปอบไม่เป็นข้อแก้ตัว

SUPREME COURT DECISION No. 263/2531
Year: 1988 (B.E. 2531)
Relevant Code Sections: Criminal, Section(s) 59, 288

SUMMARY
The defendants beat the deceased with a split bamboo pole and then with the iron handle of a knife, striking the head for about two hours in an attempt to drive out a phi pop. The Supreme Court held this was intentional murder under Section 288, because a person who beats another's head hard and for that long must foresee death. It also held that the aggravated offence of killing with especial cruelty under Section 289(5) was not made out, because the beating was an exorcism performed according to local belief and custom.

FACTS OF THE CASE
The defendant repeatedly struck the victim on the head with a blunt instrument during an exorcism ritual, causing death.

COURT'S HOLDING
Striking a person on the head with an iron knife handle, repeatedly and for about two hours, is conduct whose fatal outcome the defendant must be taken to have foreseen under Section 59, so the killing is intentional murder under Section 288 and a belief that the victim was possessed by a spirit is no answer to it. The Court held, however, that because the beating was done to drive out a phi pop in accordance with local belief and long standing custom, it was not conduct showing especial cruelty, so the aggravated form in Section 289(5) did not apply. The point went to the nature of the case, so the Supreme Court applied it also to a defendant who had already withdrawn his petition.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
The case is often cited for the proposition that religious or supernatural belief is no defence to murder, and as far as Section 288 goes that is right. The more interesting half is usually left out.

On intent, the Court reasoned from the instrument and the duration. An iron handle about one inch across and eight and a half inches long, applied to the head hard and for two hours, produces a foreseeable death; the swelling and bruising to the forehead, cheekbone and skull confirmed the force used. Foresight of that kind is intent under Section 59, and the defendants' purpose in beating the deceased did not displace it.

On aggravation, the same belief that failed as a defence succeeded as a limit. Section 289(5) requires killing by especially cruel conduct, and the Court held that a beating carried out as an exorcism, following a custom practised in the locality, does not show that character even though it lasted two hours and killed. So the belief did not excuse the killing and did reduce its grade. Anyone citing this case for the broad claim that belief is irrelevant in Thai criminal law is citing half of it.

A note on the source. What is reproduced on this page is the Supreme Court's official headnote (ย่อสั้น), published by the Office of the Judicial Assistants of the Supreme Court, rather than the full judgment. No longer text of 263/2531 is available from any source we can reach, so the analysis above is drawn from that headnote. It is authoritative as far as it goes, coming from the court's own reporting office, but it is a summary rather than the court's full reasons.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Two questions were answered differently here, and the second is the one to note. On liability, foresight decided it: beating a man's head with an iron knife handle, hard and for two hours, is conduct whose fatal result the defendant is taken to have foreseen, so the belief that the victim was possessed did not reduce the offence below intentional killing. But the same belief bore on the aggravated form. Because the beating was done to drive out a phi pop in accordance with local belief and long standing custom, it was not treated as showing especial cruelty, so Section 289(5) did not apply. A cultural motive may fail to excuse the killing and still defeat the aggravating provision. The point went to the nature of the case, so it reached a defendant who had already withdrawn his petition.

---
Note: This is an English-language summary of the Thai original judgment.
For the authoritative Thai text, please refer to the Thai version above
or visit deka.supremecourt.or.th.