Article 104: Court's power to weigh evidence
Statutory text (Thai original)
ให้ศาลมีอำนาจเต็มที่ในอันที่จะวินิจฉัยว่าพยานหลักฐานที่คู่ความนำมาสืบนั้นจะเกี่ยวกับประเด็นและเป็นอันเพียงพอ ให้เชื่อฟังเป็นยุติได้หรือไม่ แล้วพิพากษาคดีไปตามนั้นในการวินิจฉัยว่าพยานบอกเล่าตามมาตรา ๙๕/๑ หรือบันทึกถ้อยคำที่ผู้ให้ถ้อยคำมิได้มาศาลตามมาตรา ๑๒๐/๑ วรรคสามและวรรคสี่ หรือบันทึกถ้อยคำตามมาตรา ๑๒๐/๒ จะมีน้ำหนักให้เชื่อได้หรือไม่เพียงใดนั้น ศาลจะต้องกระทำด้วยความระมัดระวังโดยคำนึงถึงสภาพ ลักษณะ และแหล่งที่มาของพยานบอกเล่าหรือบันทึกถ้อยคำนั้นด้วย
English translation
The court shall have full power to decide whether the evidence adduced by the parties is relevant to the issues and is sufficient to be believed as conclusive, and to decide the case accordingly. In deciding whether, and to what extent, hearsay evidence under Section 95/1, or a record of the statements of a person who did not attend court under Section 120/1 paragraphs three and four, or a record of statements under Section 120/2, is to be given weight and believed, the court must act with caution, having regard also to the condition, nature and source of that hearsay evidence or record of statements.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 104 is the Code's core statement of judicial free evaluation of evidence. The court has full power to decide relevance and sufficiency, whether the evidence is enough to be believed as conclusive, and to decide the case on that assessment. This discretion is broad and is generally treated as a question of fact. The second sentence, added with the modern hearsay reforms, tempers that freedom for lower-grade proof: for hearsay under Section 95/1 and for records of statements under Sections 120/1 and 120/2 taken from absent persons, the court must weigh with caution, considering the condition, nature and source of the material. It works alongside Section 104's general power rather than displacing it.
Why this matters in practice
Because weighing evidence is largely the trial court's factual call, appeals that merely re-argue how the judge weighed the proof are often barred as points of fact, so build your strongest case at first instance. Do not lean on hearsay or written statements from witnesses who will not appear if you can avoid it, since the court must treat such material cautiously and may give it little weight. Where the court fails to weigh a party's evidence at all, that can be a genuine legal error worth raising, not just a disagreement on the facts.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2906/2556 (2013)
The trial court has full power under Section 104 paragraph one to decide whether the evidence adduced is relevant and sufficient to be believed as conclusive; where the existing facts are enough to decide the case, it may properly refuse a party's request to summon further witnesses.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court had full power under Section 104 paragraph one (applied through Section 15 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) to judge relevance and sufficiency, and that it was proper to reject the applicant's request to summon additional witnesses because the facts already before it were enough to decide the case.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 2956/2554 (2011)
Under Section 104 paragraph one the court has full power to decide whether the parties' evidence is relevant and sufficient to be believed as conclusive; a petition that merely disputes the court's assessment of the facts is a petition on fact.
The Supreme Court quoted Section 104 paragraph one on the court's full power to decide relevance and sufficiency, and held that the defendant's challenge to how the Court of Appeal weighed the evidence was a dispute of fact dressed up as a point of law, and so was barred.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 6446/2552 (2009)
A court that fails to consider a party's evidence and weigh it against the opposing evidence has not exercised the full power to decide relevance and sufficiency that Section 104 requires, and that is unlawful.
The trial court had not brought the third defendant's evidence into its findings or weighed it against the plaintiff's proof. The Supreme Court held this meant the court had not exercised its full power under Section 104 to decide relevance and sufficiency, which was unlawful, and it proceeded to decide the outstanding factual issue itself for the sake of expedition.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 57 Supreme Court decisions (1949 to 2023)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 4819/2566 (2023)
- Décision 15019/2558 (2015)
- Decision 2906/2556 (2013)
- Decision 11707/2554 (2011)
- Decision 2956/2554 (2011)
- Décision 752-780/2554 (2011)
- Decision 6446/2552 (2009)
- Decision 9340/2551 (2008)
Cette liste est sélectionnée automatiquement, en privilégiant les jugements qui reposent sur cet article plutôt que sur ceux qui se contentent de le citer lors du prononcé de la peine. Elle n'a pas encore été examinée par le cabinet.
Le plus souvent cité aux côtés de
- Article 86 8
- Article 248 5
- Article 27 3
- Art. 15 du Code de procédure pénale thaïlandais 3
- Article 246 3
- Article 225 3
Sections qui apparaissent le plus souvent dans les mêmes jugements que celui-ci. Le chiffre correspond au nombre de décisions.
Calculé sur l'ensemble du corpus de 83 652 décisions de la Cour suprême du cabinet, de 1921 à 2026. Le décompte est exhaustif ; la plage d'années indiquée élimine les valeurs aberrantes rares afin de refléter la répartition réelle des citations. Ces chiffres sont calculés par nos soins et ne constituent pas des statistiques officielles de la Cour. Comment nous les comptons et ce que nous avons mesuré
Foire aux questions
Qui décide si les preuves sont suffisantes pour gagner ?
Le tribunal en a le pouvoir. L'article 104 lui confère le plein pouvoir de décider si les preuves sont pertinentes et suffisantes pour être considérées comme concluantes, et de trancher l'affaire en conséquence.
Les ouï-dire sont-ils traités de la même manière que les preuves directes ?
Non. Pour les ouï-dire au sens de l'article 95/1 et les déclarations enregistrées au sens des articles 120/1 et 120/2, le tribunal doit faire preuve de prudence, en tenant compte de l'état, de la nature et de la source du matériel.
Puis-je contester la manière dont le juge a apprécié les preuves ?
Souvent non. La manière dont le tribunal apprécie les preuves en vertu de l'article 104 est généralement une question de fait, et les appels ou requêtes qui contestent simplement cette appréciation peuvent être irrecevables.
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Civil Procedure Code, s. 104 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Civil Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 104. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-104/ (accessed 1 septembre 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.วิ.พ. มาตรา 104 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-104/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-104/"><p>The court shall have full power to decide whether the evidence adduced by the parties is relevant to the issues and is sufficient to be believed as conclusive, and to decide the case accordingly. In deciding whether, and to what extent, hearsay evidence under Section…</p><footer>Civil Procedure Code, s. 104 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-104/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.