Section 63 — Aggravating result must be ordinary
English translation
If the result of the commission of any offence causes the doer to receive a heavier punishment, that result must be one which can ordinarily occur.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 63 states the causation test for result-aggravated offences in Book 1: a heavier penalty tied to a consequence applies only where that consequence ordinarily arises from the conduct. It is distinct from the intention test in Section 59 paragraph two, because the aggravating result need not be intended or foreseen; the test is objective proximate causation. The provision governs offences such as assault causing grievous injury or death and robbery or snatching-theft with aggravated consequences, filtering out results that are too remote to be a natural outcome of the act. It thereby limits how far the base offence can be escalated by an unusual or freak result.
Why this matters in practice
Section 63 gives the defence a causation argument against result-based aggravation: if the more serious outcome (grievous injury or death) was not an ordinary consequence of the act, the heavier penalty should not attach even though the base offence stands. Because the aggravating result does not depend on intent or foresight, disputes usually turn on medical and factual causation, whether the outcome naturally followed. The defence should scrutinise intervening causes and the ordinariness of the result. In serious cases where the aggravated grade drives a much higher sentence, experienced criminal counsel should test the causal chain closely.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2529/2564 (2021)
Where gang-rape causing death carries a heavier penalty regardless of intent or foresight, the death must nonetheless be a result that can ordinarily occur under Section 63.
Addressing the aggravated form of rape under Section 276 paragraph three (former), the Court held that because the heavier punishment applies whether or not the doer intended or foresaw the result, the resulting death of the victim must be a result that ordinarily occurs under Section 63.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2969/2556 (2013)
The aggravated results of snatching-theft (injury, grievous injury, or death) are results causing a heavier punishment under Section 63, not results flowing from intent or foresight under Section 59 paragraph two.
The Court held that the provisions increasing punishment for snatching-theft where the victim suffers injury, grievous injury, or death are merely aggravating-result provisions under Section 63, not proof that snatching-theft involves violence as an element under Section 59 paragraph two.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 7262/2554 (2011)
A death that is a natural consequence of the defendant's act is a result that can ordinarily occur under Section 63 and makes the defendant liable to a heavier punishment.
The Court held that the later death of a co-plaintiff was connected to, and an ordinary result of, the defendant's act under Section 63, so it made the defendant liable to a heavier punishment; the point was a substantive question of law the Court would decide.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to have intended the more serious result for the heavier penalty to apply?
No. Under Section 63 the heavier penalty applies if the result is one that ordinarily occurs from the act, whether or not you intended or foresaw it. The test is natural causation, not intention.
Can an unusual or freak result increase the sentence?
Not if it was not an ordinary consequence of the act. Section 63 excludes results that do not naturally follow, so a remote or freak outcome should not trigger the heavier penalty.