Liability for Damage to Property, Justification of Self-Defense, and Subsequent Theft
Mr. Si owned a chicken which he allowed to roam freely. One day, the chicken entered Mr. Sa’s vegetable garden and caused damage by eating the crops. In response, Mr. Sa used a slingshot to shoot and kill the chicken.
Mr. Si may be liable under Section 395 of the Thai Criminal Code for negligently allowing his animal to trespass and cause damage to another person’s property.
As for Mr. Sa, the act of killing the chicken may be considered an act of protecting his property. However, such action exceeds reasonable necessity, and thus constitutes an offense of damage to property under Section 358, in conjunction with Section 69 of the Criminal Code (Supreme Court Decision No. 29/2487).
Furthermore, although the chicken had been killed, ownership remained with Mr. Si. If Mr. Sa subsequently formed dishonest intent and took the chicken for consumption, such act constitutes theft under the Criminal Code.