Whoever commits theft by using force or threatening to use force immediately in order to:
(1) facilitate the theft or carrying away of the property;
(2) compel delivery of the property;
(3) retain possession of the property;
(4) conceal the offence; or
(5) escape arrest;
commits robbery and shall be punished with imprisonment of five to ten years and fined of one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand Baht.
The defendant robbed a convenience store while carrying a knife visibly tucked in his waistband, though he did not actually draw or use the knife during the robbery. The Supreme Court held that armed robbery under Section 340 is established when the offender carries a weapon during the commission of the robbery, regardless of whether the weapon is actually used or brandished. The mere display or possession of a weapon during a robbery creates an enhanced intimidation that elevates the offense. The victim and witnesses testified they saw the knife and feared for their lives, which the Court found sufficient to establish the aggravated offense.
The defendant snatched a gold necklace from around the victim's neck while the victim was walking along a public road. The Supreme Court held that snatching property directly from a person's body constitutes robbery under Section 339, not mere theft under Section 334. The distinction lies in the use of force against the person, however slight. When property is taken by force directly from the victim's body or immediate possession, the element of violence or intimidation inherent in the act elevates the offense from theft to robbery. The forceful removal of the necklace from the victim's neck constitutes the requisite physical force.
The case addressed whether a co-defendant could be convicted under Section 339(2) for robbery with a weapon when unaware the other defendant carried a weapon. The Supreme Court determined both defendants jointly committed robbery with a weapon and used a motorcycle to transport stolen property. Criminal liability under Section 339(2) and Section 340 Ter was established regardless of the second defendant's claimed ignorance of the weapon, when both acted jointly in the robbery.
The defendant stole a buffalo and, when the owner chased him, the defendant drew a gun to prevent the owner from recovering the property. The Supreme Court held that where theft and the use of force or threat form a continuous act—the defendant used the weapon to facilitate escape with the stolen property—the offense is elevated to robbery under Section 339. Drawing a weapon to keep stolen property during flight constitutes a single continuous criminal act.
Disclaimer: The English translation is unofficial and for informational purposes only. The authoritative text is in Thai as published in the Royal Thai Government Gazette (Ratchakitchanubeksa).ข้อสงวนสิทธิ์: คำแปลภาษาอังกฤษเป็นคำแปลอย่างไม่เป็นทางการ เพื่อวัตถุประสงค์ในการให้ข้อมูลเท่านั้น ข้อความที่เป็นทางการเป็นภาษาไทยตามที่ประกาศในราชกิจจานุเบกษา