Hua Hin: The family of "Sergeant Punch" has petitioned the Attorney General, fearing potential interference in the case involving the fatal shooting of the soldier by a former advisor to the Police Commission at Hua Hin Police Station. Lawyer Paisarn Ruengrit accompanied Ms. Buabua, the widow of Sergeant Major Rojchanaphon, known as "Sergeant Punch," to file the complaint. Concerns were raised after the suspect failed to offer an apology or compensation, instead claiming on social media that the matter could be resolved with a payment, which they alleged had already been cleared for 10 million baht.
According to Thai News Agency, Mr. Kanthas Pongpaiboonwet, also known as "Kan Jom Phalang," has been assisting the victim's family since the incident on August 18, 2014. The shooting occurred in a pub in Hua Hin, Prachuap Khiri Khan Province, when Mr. Chakkrit, the former advisor, allegedly shot Sergeant Punch with a 9 mm gun. The Hua Hin Police Station initially handled the case before forwarding it to the prosecutor within a month. However, discomfort arose when the family reviewed the prosecutor's case summary, which they deemed unfair. Despite multiple court appearances, no apology or compensation was forthcoming from the other party, who claimed on social media that a 10 million baht settlement had been reached.
Ms. Buabua expressed her concerns about the case summary presented to the court, which alleged misconduct by Sergeant Punch, including intoxication and inappropriate behavior leading to the altercation that resulted in his death. She questioned the accuracy of these claims, noting the lack of evidence from CCTV footage to support such allegations. Despite their encounters in court, the suspect continued to live a seemingly unaffected life without addressing compensation or offering an apology.
Lawyer Paisarn Ruangrit emphasized the right of the deceased's wife to seek justice, clarifying that their actions did not undermine the court's authority. He revealed that the prosecutor had privately confessed to being pressured from higher authorities to present the case as one of anger-fueled violence, contradicting available evidence. Paisarn questioned the narrative that had emerged, especially given the absence of proof for the alleged misconduct in the pub. He lamented the public's perception of the case, which appeared to diverge from the facts, and questioned whether such discrepancies indicated broader issues of influence or corruption within the region.