Believing the Victim Is Invulnerable Does Not Negate Intent to Kill ใช้ปืนจ่อยิงผู้ตายที่อวัยวะสำคัญโดยเชื่อว่าผู้ตายอยู่ยงคงกะพัน ความเชื่อทางไสยศาสตร์ไม่ทำให้เจตนาฆ่าหมดไป จำเลยมีความผิดฐานฆ่าผู้อื่นโดยเจตนา

SUPREME COURT DECISION No. 59/2502
Year: 1959 (B.E. 2502)
Relevant Code Sections: Criminal, Section(s) 288

SUMMARY
The trial court accepted the defendant's account that he believed the victim invulnerable and convicted him only of causing death by an act of violence under Section 290, four years reduced by half to two. The Court of Appeal substituted intentional homicide under Section 288 read with Section 59 and raised the sentence to fifteen years, reduced by half to seven years and six months. On further appeal the Supreme Court reasoned from the act rather than from the belief. The belief in invulnerability had no rational foundation, a firearm is a lethal weapon, and a man who holds one against a vital part of the body must foresee that the victim will die if it discharges, so he was conscious of what he was doing. The Court of Appeal's judgment was affirmed.

FACTS OF THE CASE
The defendant shot the victim at close range at the shoulder blade, a vital area. The defendant believed the victim was invulnerable (superstitious belief).

COURT'S HOLDING
The Supreme Court held that regardless of the defendant's superstitious beliefs, intentionally shooting at a vital area with a firearm constitutes intentional homicide under Section 288. A mistaken belief in supernatural invulnerability does not negate criminal intent.

LEGAL ANALYSIS
The Court did not weigh the sincerity of the belief at all. It reasoned from two objective facts, that a gun is a lethal weapon and that the defendant pressed it against a vital spot, and treated foresight of death as following from those.

That is the practical shape of Section 59 in Thai practice: intent is inferred from the weapon and the part of the body aimed at, and a defendant's account of his own state of mind, however genuine, does not displace an inference the physical facts compel.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Intent was found from the act, not from what the defendant said was in his mind. The Court treated the belief in invulnerability as having no rational foundation and reasoned from two objective facts instead: a firearm is a lethal weapon, and he held it against a vital part of the body. A man who does that must foresee death if the weapon discharges. The practical lesson is that a sincerely held belief, however genuine, does not displace an inference the physical facts compel. What turned on it was substantial: the trial court convicted under Section 290 and imposed two years, the Court of Appeal substituted Section 288 and imposed seven years and six months, and the Supreme Court affirmed the latter.

---
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.