Section 295: Assault causing bodily or mental harm

Penalty rate amended by section 4 of the Act Amending the Penal Code (No. 26) B.E. 2560 (2017).

What this means for foreigners

Supreme Court decisions on this section

1. Supreme Court Decision No. 3538/2569

   Facts: After the victim told the defendant to leave an apartment building, the defendant took a small axe from under his motorcycle seat and struck the victim's temple, causing wounds that healed in about seven days; he was charged with attempted murder.

   Held: The Supreme Court held that the small, old axe, the trivial motive, the absence of prior enmity and the minor wounds showed only an intent to cause bodily harm, not to kill, and convicted under section 295 (six months) under Criminal Procedure Code section 192; self-defence and provocation were rejected because the victim only tried to stop the attack.

   Why it matters: It shows how courts reclassify an attempted murder charge to section 295 by looking at the weapon, wounds and motive.

   จำเลยมีเพียงเจตนาทำร้ายร่างกายผู้เสียหายเท่านั้น ไม่ใช่เจตนาฆ่า

2. Supreme Court Decision No. 4292/2567

   Facts: The defendant punched the victim once on the nose while the victim and another woman were hitting the defendant's wife; the lower courts convicted under section 295 and replaced imprisonment with confinement.

   Held: Although the factual appeal was barred, the Supreme Court held that the record showed lawful self-defence of the wife, proportionate because it was one punch and not repeated, so the act was not an offence under section 68; it reversed and dismissed the charge.

   Why it matters: Defending a spouse from an unlawful attack is lawful self-defence if the force is proportionate, and the Supreme Court will raise it of its own motion.

   การกระทำของจำเลยจึงเป็นการป้องกันพอสมควรแก่เหตุและไม่เกินกว่ากรณีแห่งการจำต้องกระทำเพื่อป้องกัน

3. Supreme Court Decision No. 2107/2568

   Facts: The defendant struck the victim on the head with a piece of timber and punched him repeatedly, causing a five centimetre wound reaching the skull; he was sentenced to four months after a one third reduction.

   Held: The Supreme Court refused to hear the self-defence argument because it had not been pursued on first appeal, and upheld the refusal to suspend the sentence because the blow was hard, to the head, and no compensation had been paid.

   Why it matters: A defence dropped on appeal cannot be revived later, and failing to compensate the victim weighs against a suspended sentence.

   แสดงว่าจำเลยใช้ไม้ฟาดผู้เสียหายที่ศีรษะซึ่งเป็นอวัยวะสำคัญอย่างแรง

4. Supreme Court Decision No. 361/2563

   Facts: The victim was stabbed in the abdomen during a roadside quarrel between two village groups; the defendant was charged with attempted murder, convicted by the trial court under section 295 (old text), and acquitted on appeal.

   Held: The Supreme Court found that the defendant did the stabbing and restored the section 295 conviction, but replaced the sentence with a fine of 4,000 baht and a two year suspended prison term with probation; it also reinstated the compensation award because the civil claim must follow the criminal facts under Criminal Procedure Code section 46.

   Why it matters: The victim's compensation claim stands or falls with the criminal finding, even where the victim did not appeal.

   จำเลยจึงมีความผิดฐานทำร้ายร่างกายผู้เสียหายจนเป็นเหตุให้เกิดอันตรายแก่กายตามคำพิพากษาศาลชั้นต้น

5. Supreme Court Decision No. 413/2560

   Facts: A 17 year old who, while drunk, joined in an assault causing wounds that took about seven days to heal was ordered to a juvenile training centre; he later compensated the victim in full and the victim no longer wished to pursue the case.

   Held: The Supreme Court held that the changed circumstances, full compensation and the defendant's clean record justified suspending the prison sentence for two years instead of detention.

   Why it matters: Full compensation after an assault can turn detention into a suspended sentence, but it does not end the prosecution.

   หลังเกิดเหตุจำเลยได้ชดใช้ค่าสินไหมทดแทนให้แก่โจทก์ร่วมครบถ้วนแล้ว

6. Supreme Court Decision No. 18538/2555

   Facts: Two foreign witnesses who did not understand Thai identified the defendant as one of those who assaulted the victim; a police officer acted as their interpreter during the investigation and in court.

   Held: The Supreme Court held that an interpreter may be anyone competent other than the official conducting the questioning, so the sworn police interpreter's translation was admissible, and it upheld the section 295 conviction (with section 83).

   Why it matters: Evidence from foreign witnesses through a police interpreter can support an assault conviction.

   การให้การและเบิกความของนางสาวเจมีร่าซึ่งเป็นชาวต่างประเทศและไม่เข้าใจภาษาไทยจึงเป็นการชอบด้วยประมวลกฎหมายวิธีพิจารณาความอาญา มาตรา 13 วรรคสี่

7. Supreme Court Decision No. 7491/2562

   Facts: Workers from Laos on a farm who tried to escape were caught, beaten and confined; the employers and others were prosecuted for human trafficking, detention and assault.

   Held: The Supreme Court's reasoning concerned trafficking by forced labour; in its judgment it convicted the defendants of jointly causing bodily harm under section 295 as separate counts, the fourth defendant receiving four months per count for three counts.

   Why it matters: Assault of foreign workers is punished as separate counts alongside trafficking and detention offences.

   ลงโทษจำเลยที่ 4 ฐานร่วมกันทำร้ายผู้อื่นเป็นเหตุให้ได้รับอันตรายแก่กาย จำคุกกระทงละ 4 เดือน รวม 3 กระทง

Related sections

• Section 297, Penal Code: Grievous bodily harm: the aggravated result.
• Section 290, Penal Code: Assault causing death without intent to kill.
• Section 288, Penal Code: Murder; attempted murder charges are often reduced to section 295.
• Section 68, Penal Code: Self-defence, a complete defence to section 295.
• Section 72, Penal Code: Provocation, reducing the sentence.
• Section 56, Penal Code: Suspended sentence, often granted after compensation.
• Section 391, Penal Code: Petty offence of assault not causing bodily harm.

Questions about this section

What is the penalty for assault causing bodily harm in Thailand?

Under section 295 of the Penal Code, as amended by the No. 26 Act of B.E. 2560, the court may impose imprisonment of up to two years, a fine of up to 40,000 baht, or both. Grievous injury is dealt with under section 297 and death under section 290, which carry heavier penalties. In 413/2560 and 361/2563 the Supreme Court suspended the prison term, and compensating the victim weighed in the defendant's favour.

Can I claim self-defence if I was attacked in Thailand?

Yes. Section 68 makes proportionate self-defence, including defence of another person, lawful. In 4292/2567 the Supreme Court acquitted a man who threw a single punch to protect his wife from two attackers. The force must stop once the danger has passed. Raise the defence at trial and keep it alive on every appeal: in 2107/2568 a defendant lost it by dropping it on first appeal.

Does paying the victim end an assault case?

Not by itself. Assault under section 295 is prosecuted by the state, so a settlement does not automatically close the case. Compensation still matters a great deal: in 413/2560 full payment and the victim's loss of interest led the Supreme Court to suspend the sentence. In 2107/2568 the absence of any compensation was one reason the court refused to suspend a prison term.