Whoever commences the commission of an offence but does not carry it through, or carries it through but the act does not achieve its end, is said to have attempted to commit an offence.
Whoever attempts to commit an offence shall be liable to two-thirds of the punishment provided by law for such offence.
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 accused of aiding others in attempted murder. The defendant parked a vehicle as a lookout approximately 200 meters from the crime scene and could not see the actual location. The Supreme Court distinguished between joint perpetrator status under Section 83 and accomplice liability under Section 86. Merely providing logistical support (transportation, lookout duty) without direct participation in the violent act constitutes accomplice liability, not joint perpetration, resulting in a reduced sentence of two-thirds of the penalty.
The defendant was riding a motorcycle with the victim as passenger. After an accident, the victim was unconscious with serious injuries. The defendant abandoned the victim at the roadside for 8 days without seeking medical help. The Supreme Court held that where a person causes injury to another and then deliberately abandons the victim knowing that death may result from the failure to act, this constitutes attempted murder by omission under Sections 288 and 80.
The defendant used a firearm to shoot the victim with intent to kill, but when the victim dodged, the bullet penetrated and hit another person by accident. The Supreme Court applied the transferred intent doctrine under Section 60 (aberratio ictus), convicting of attempted murder by mistake. This case confirmed that when a perpetrator aims at one person but hits another due to the victim's evasion, the transferred intent provisions of Section 60 apply, treating the harm to the unintended victim as intentional.
The defendant fired a gun at the victim intending to kill, but the bullet missed. The victim was unharmed. The Supreme Court convicted the defendant of attempted murder under Section 288 read with Section 80. The Court held that an attempt is constituted when the defendant performs an act beyond mere preparation that is directed toward the commission of the intended offense, but the offense is not completed for reasons beyond the defendant's control. Firing a gun at a person with intent to kill constitutes an act that goes well beyond preparation and is directly connected to the intended result. The fact that the bullet missed does not negate the attempt. Under Section 80, the punishment for an attempt is two-thirds of that prescribed for the completed offense.
The defendant fired a gun into a crowd in a confined space. The Supreme Court held that shooting into a crowded area where people are gathered closely together constitutes intent to kill by foreseeability (Section 59, paragraph 2). Even if the defendant did not aim at a specific individual, shooting into a crowd demonstrates that the defendant must have foreseen that death could result from the act.
The defendant shot the victim after a dispute, then fired again when the victim's father intervened. The court found the second shooting constituted attempted murder with transferred intent under Section 60. When the defendant fired at the victim to ensure death, a bullet struck the father. This resulted in conviction for attempted murder by mistake, establishing that transferred intent applies even in attempted murder scenarios.
The court examined criminal conduct involving alleged rape of two victims under 15. The defendant removed clothing and attempted penetration, but physical evidence indicated the act did not achieve full penetration. The court determined the defendant's actions constituted an attempt rather than completed rape. The Supreme Court ruled the prosecution's evidence supported conviction under Section 277(1) rather than the more severe Section 277(2), as the appellate court's conviction exceeded the plaintiff's request.
The defendant was convicted of attempted rape (พยายามข่มขืนกระทำชำเรา). The defendant's actions constituted a single continuous act violating multiple criminal statutes (Sections 276, 277 bis, 297, 364, 365). The Supreme Court corrected the sentencing to impose punishment under the most severe provision per Section 90. This case established the principle that when a sexual assault constitutes multiple offenses in a single continuous act, the heaviest penalty provision applies.
The defendant fired a weapon into the victim's home at night. Although the bullets did not strike the victim, one landed approximately 1 meter from the victim and another struck beneath a window. The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of constructive intent (เจตนาเล็งเห็นผล) under Section 59, reasoning that a reasonable person would foresee that firing into an occupied home at night would endanger its inhabitants. This landmark case established the standard for inferring intent to kill from the circumstances of the act.
The defendant shot at his daughter-in-law during a dispute, but the bullet struck a mango tree 5 meters away. The court found significant doubt regarding intent to kill, noting the defendant held the gun at waist level with both hands rather than aiming, and at close range an intentional shooter would likely not miss. The defendant had a habit of using firearms to threaten. The court applied the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the defendant, establishing that mere firing a weapon does not automatically prove intent to kill.
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