Stabbing to Stop a Beating With a Stick Is Lawful Self-Defense Under Section 68 ถูกทำร้ายด้วยไม้ท่อนซ้ำขณะกำลังขึ้นจากสระน้ำ การใช้อาวุธแทง 3 ครั้งเพื่อยับยั้งภยันตรายที่ใกล้จะถึงเป็นการป้องกันโดยชอบด้วยกฎหมายพอสมควรแก่เหตุตามมาตรา 68

SUPREME COURT DECISION No. 2755/2539
Year: 1996 (B.E. 2539)
Relevant Code Sections: Criminal, Section(s) 68, 288

SUMMARY
The complainant threw a piece of wood about a cubit long which struck the defendant and knocked him into a pond, then ran up and beat him with it again as he was climbing out. The defendant stabbed him three times. The trial court convicted of attempted murder and imposed ten years; the Court of Appeal Region 2 reversed and dismissed the charge, and it was the prosecution that appealed further. The Supreme Court treated the dispute about the weapon as immaterial: whether it was the knife the prosecution proved or the saw blade the defendant claimed, what it had to be measured against was the wooden club then being used on him. Against a danger that was unlawful, imminent and still continuing, the response was reasonable, and the acquittal was affirmed.

FACTS OF THE CASE
The victim attacked the defendant with a wooden pole, knocking him into water and continuing the assault as he emerged. The defendant used a stabbing weapon three times in self-defense.

COURT'S HOLDING
The Supreme Court determined the defendant's actions constituted lawful self-defense under Section 68, as the force used was proportionate when comparing the stabbing weapon against the sustained assault with a wooden pole. The threat was ongoing and immediate, justifying the defensive response.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
Proportionality under Section 68 is judged against the danger as it stood at that moment, not by comparing the two weapons on a table. The complainant had already knocked the defendant into a pond with a length of wood and was striking him again as he climbed out.

On those facts the Court held three stab wounds proportionate, and expressly declined to decide whether the implement was a knife or a saw blade, because on either version the comparison with a sustained beating by a man standing over him came out the same way. A defender who is down and being struck is not required to find a weapon that matches his attacker's.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Self-defence is measured against the danger as it stood at that moment, not by comparing the weapons. Here the defendant was knocked into a pond and beaten again with a stick as he climbed out, and stabbing to stop the attack was held proportionate. Preserve evidence that the danger was present and continuing: witnesses, the defendant's own injuries, and anything showing who began the attack and who kept it going.

---
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.