Article 114: Exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom
Statutory text (Thai original)
ห้ามไม่ให้พยานเบิกความต่อหน้าพยานอื่นที่จะเบิกความภายหลัง และศาลมีอำนาจที่จะสั่งพยานอื่นที่อยู่ในห้องพิจารณาให้ออกไปเสียได้แต่ถ้าพยานคนใดเบิกความโดยได้ฟังคำพยานคนก่อนเบิกความต่อหน้าตนมาแล้ว และคู่ความอีกฝ่ายหนึ่งอ้างว่าศาลไม่ควรฟังคำเบิกความเช่นว่านี้ เพราะเป็นการผิดระเบียบ ถ้าศาลเห็นว่าคำเบิกความเช่นว่านี้เป็นที่เชื่อฟังได้ หรือมิได้เปลี่ยนแปลงไปโดยได้ฟังคำเบิกความของพยานคนก่อนหรือไม่สามารถทำให้คำวินิจฉัยชี้ขาดของศาลเปลี่ยนแปลงไปได้ ศาลจะไม่ฟังว่าคำเบิกความเช่นว่านี้เป็นผิดระเบียบก็ได้
English translation
A witness is prohibited from giving testimony in the presence of another witness who is to testify afterwards, and the court has the power to order other witnesses who are in the courtroom to leave. But if a witness gives testimony after having heard, in their presence, the testimony of a prior witness, and the other party claims that the court should not admit such testimony because it is irregular, then if the court is of the opinion that such testimony is credible, or that it has not been altered by having heard the prior witness's testimony, or that it cannot cause the court's adjudication to change, the court may decline to hold that such testimony is irregular.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified. Always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 114 guards against witnesses tailoring their evidence to match what they have heard others say, by keeping a witness who is yet to testify out of earshot and letting the court clear the courtroom of waiting witnesses. The second paragraph is a saving provision: even if the sequestration is breached, the court is not bound to reject the tainted testimony. It may still admit it where the evidence is credible, was not influenced by what the witness overheard, or would not alter the decision, a discretion the courts describe as arising under paragraph two. The provision complements the oath in Section 112 and the oral testimony rule in Section 113, and applies in criminal proceedings through Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Why this matters in practice
If you are worried about collusion, ask the court at the start of the hearing to keep the other side's witnesses out of the courtroom until each has testified. If a witness does overhear earlier evidence, object promptly and have the objection recorded, because the court weighs whether the testimony is still credible and whether it changed anything. A failure to object at the time can weaken the point on appeal, so raising it correctly during the trial matters. Careful hearing management like this is part of why choosing an experienced Thai lawyer makes a difference.
Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4641/2558 (2015)
Under the second paragraph of Section 114, the court has discretion to decline to treat testimony as irregular where the account is credible and does not change the court's adjudication, even though the witness heard an earlier witness.
The Supreme Court found a witness's testimony consistent with the scene inspection and with the witness's own statement in a related criminal case, so it was credible and did not change the adjudication. The court held that under the second paragraph of Section 114 it had discretion not to treat that testimony as irregular.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 5027/2552 (2009)
A party who does not object at trial to a breach of the witness exclusion rule weakens the point, and in any event under the second paragraph of Section 114 the testimony may be accepted if it would not change the court's decision.
The plaintiff argued that two defendants who heard each other testify could easily coordinate their accounts. The Supreme Court noted the plaintiff had not objected to the irregularity at first instance and held that, in any event, it could not change the court's adjudication under the second paragraph of Section 114.
-
Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 4132/2556 (2013)
Allowing an injured party to testify after remaining in the courtroom during an earlier witness's evidence engages both the irregular-proceeding rule in Section 27 and the witness exclusion rule in Section 114, which the court must apply in assessing whether the testimony was properly received.
The defence objected that an injured party had sat in the courtroom during an earlier witness's evidence, invoking Section 114 together with Section 27 and Section 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court examined whether the lower courts had properly received that testimony in light of those provisions.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Cited in 13 Supreme Court decisions (1972 to 2015)
Décisions de citation sélectionnées
- Decision 4641/2558 (2015)
- Decision 4132/2556 (2013)
- Decision 3003-3004/2556 (2013)
- Décision 5126/2545 (2002)
- Decision 2021/2543 (2000)
- Decision 4022/2541 (1998)
- Decision 75/2539 (1996)
- Decision 827/2537 (1994)
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
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
Les témoins peuvent-ils rester assis dans la salle d'audience pendant qu'un autre témoin témoigne ?
En règle générale, l'article 114 interdit à un témoin de témoigner devant un témoin qui témoignera plus tard, et le tribunal peut ordonner aux témoins en attente de quitter la salle d'audience.
Que se passe-t-il si un témoin a entendu le témoignage d'un témoin précédent ?
L'autre partie peut objecter que le témoignage est irrégulier, mais en vertu du deuxième paragraphe de l'article 114, le tribunal peut tout de même l'admettre s'il est crédible, n'a pas été affecté par ce qui a été entendu ou ne changerait pas le résultat.
Guides connexes sur ThaiLawOnline
Citer cette section
-
Citation simple
Civil Procedure Code, s. 114 (Thailand) -
Citation académique
Civil Procedure Code (Thailand), s. 114. ThaiLawOnline, https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-114/ (accessed 1 septembre 2026). -
Citation thaïlandaise
ป.วิ.พ. มาตรา 114 -
Lien permanent
https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-114/ -
Intégrer sur votre site
<blockquote cite="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-114/"><p>A witness is prohibited from giving testimony in the presence of another witness who is to testify afterwards, and the court has the power to order other witnesses who are in the courtroom to leave. But if a witness gives testimony after having heard, in…</p><footer>Civil Procedure Code, s. 114 (Thailand): <a href="https://www.thailawonline.com/fr/thai-civil-procedure-code/section-114/">ThaiLawOnline</a></footer></blockquote>
The Thai text is authoritative. The English is an unofficial translation by ThaiLawOnline, free to reuse with attribution.