Section 393 — Insult in presence or by publication
English translation
Whoever insults another person in that person's presence or by means of publication shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one month, or a fine not exceeding ten thousand baht, or both.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
The elements are an act of insult expressing contempt and that it is done either in the victim's presence or by publication. It must be distinguished from criminal defamation under Sections 326 and 328, which requires imputing a fact to a third party that damages the victim's reputation; insult under Section 393 is contemptuous abuse and, in the face-to-face form, needs no third-party audience. Where the person insulted is an official in the course of duty, Section 136 may apply instead. Earlier decisions applied a former version of the text with a lower maximum fine, while the current text sets the fine at 10,000 baht. The offence is compoundable under Section 395.
Why this matters in practice
For anyone deciding how to respond to an insult, the choice between an insult charge under Section 393 and a defamation charge matters: defamation requires a false statement of fact communicated to a third party, while a face-to-face insult does not. Section 393 is a compoundable petty offence, so a private complaint and later settlement are common, and the injured person must complain within three months of learning of the offence and offender. For the wider picture, see our guide to defamation charges in Thailand.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3851/2563 (2020)
Where a charge is framed as insulting an official on duty but the evidence shows the words were spoken to the victim as a private individual, the court may convict under Section 393 for insulting another person in their presence, provided the complaint sets out the face-to-face insulting words.
The prosecution charged insulting an official in the performance of duty, but the facts established that the defendant insulted the victim as an ordinary person to their face. Because the complaint described the face-to-face insulting words, which are the elements of insult under Section 393, the court had power to convict under that section.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between insult under Section 393 and defamation?
Insult under Section 393 is contemptuous abuse to the victim's face or by publication and needs no third party, while defamation requires imputing a fact to a third party that damages reputation.
Can a court convict for insult under Section 393 if the charge was insulting an official?
Yes. Where the evidence shows the words were spoken to the victim as a private individual and the complaint describes the face-to-face insult, the court may convict under Section 393.
Is insult under Section 393 compoundable?
Yes. Section 395 makes the offence compoundable, so the injured person may settle and withdraw the complaint before the case becomes final.