In the cases provided in Sections 67 and 68, if the offender has acted beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances, or beyond what the necessity requires, or beyond what is necessary for the defense, the Court may impose a punishment less than that provided by law for such offence to any extent. But if the act was committed out of excitement, fright, or fear, the Court may not impose any punishment at all.
The Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who used a firearm against multiple attackers who were throwing bottles and pieces of wood committed excessive self-defense under Section 69. While the threat was real and imminent, using a firearm against bottle-throwing attackers exceeded proportionate response. The conviction was for attempted murder but with reduced sentencing under the excessive self-defense provision of Section 69.
The defendant was attacked and used excessive force in repelling the attack, causing the death of the attacker. The Supreme Court found that the defendant acted in self-defense but exceeded what was reasonably necessary under the circumstances, constituting excessive self-defense under Section 69. Under this provision, the defendant remains criminally liable for the resulting harm but the court has discretion to reduce the punishment. The Court reduced the sentence, noting that the defendant acted out of genuine fear and in response to a real threat, though the defensive response went beyond what was proportionate to the danger faced.
The defendant shot and killed an unarmed attacker who had punched him during an altercation. The defendant claimed self-defense under Section 68. The Supreme Court held that while the right of self-defense is recognized under Section 68, the defensive force used must be proportionate to the threat faced. Shooting an unarmed attacker who used only fists exceeds the bounds of reasonable necessity. The force used in self-defense must not exceed what is reasonably necessary to repel the danger. The defendant was convicted but the court applied Section 69, reducing the punishment because the defendant exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense due to fear and agitation.
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