Section 60 — Transferred intent by aberration
English translation
Whoever intends to commit an act against one person but the result of the act befalls another person by aberration shall be deemed to have committed the act intentionally against the person on whom the harmful result fell. However, in a case where the law provides for a heavier punishment by reason of the status of the person, or the relationship between the doer and the person suffering the harm, that law shall not be applied to impose a heavier punishment on the doer.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 60 codifies transferred intent (aberratio ictus) within Book 1 on Criminal Liability, building directly on the definition of intention in Section 59. The doer's intention toward the intended target is imputed to the person actually harmed, so intent need not be proved anew as to the unintended victim. The proviso is important: aggravating provisions keyed to the victim's status or to a relationship (for example, killing an ascendant) are not transferred to increase the penalty, because those turn on facts the doer did not direct at the actual victim. It works alongside Section 61 (mistake as to the person) and the general intention rules, and is commonly applied to homicide and assault charges under Sections 288 and 290 read with Section 83 on co-principals.
Why this matters in practice
For a defendant, Section 60 removes the argument that hitting the wrong person negates intent: liability attaches to the actual victim as if intended. The practical value of the section for the defence lies in its proviso, which blocks status-based or relationship-based enhancements (such as the heavier penalty for killing an ascendant) from being carried over to the unintended victim. Charges are typically framed as an intentional offence, or its attempt, committed by aberration, so the exposure tracks the base offence rather than any aggravated form tied to the intended target. These are serious violent-offence charges where early legal advice is essential.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3978/2567 (2024)
A co-principal who joins an assault intending one victim is liable under Section 60 for the death of a second victim caused by aberration, as an intentional offence against that victim.
The defendant joined in a group assault on the first deceased and was held liable as a co-principal for that death, and additionally for causing the death of the second deceased by aberration under Section 290 paragraph one read with Sections 60 and 83. The Court treated the death of the unintended victim as an intentional offence transferred under Section 60.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3724/2564 (2021)
Firing at an intended target and striking a bystander supports conviction for murder of the target and attempted murder of the bystander by aberration under Section 60.
The trial court convicted the defendant of murder together with attempted murder committed against another person by aberration, applying Section 288 with Section 80 and Section 60. The case illustrates transferred intent extending to an attempt where the unintended victim survives.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
If I aim at one person but hit another, am I still liable?
Yes. Under Section 60 the law deems the act to have been committed intentionally against the person actually harmed, so you remain liable as if you had intended to harm that person.
Does the heavier penalty for harming a relative apply to an unintended victim?
No. Section 60 provides that a law imposing a heavier punishment because of the victim's status or relationship to the doer is not applied to increase the penalty for the person harmed by aberration.