Section 95/1 — Hearsay evidence and its exceptions
Statutory text (Thai original)
ข้อความซึ่งเป็นการบอกเล่าที่พยานบุคคลใดนำมาเบิกความต่อศาลก็ดี หรือที่บันทึกไว้ในเอกสารหรือวัตถุอื่นใดซึ่งได้อ้างเป็นพยานหลักฐานต่อศาลก็ดี หากนำเสนอเพื่อพิสูจน์ความจริงแห่งข้อความนั้น ให้ถือเป็นพยานบอกเล่า
ห้ามมิให้ศาลรับฟังพยานบอกเล่า เว้นแต่
(๑) ตามสภาพ ลักษณะ แหล่งที่มา และข้อเท็จจริงแวดล้อมของพยานบอกเล่านั้น น่าเชื่อว่าจะพิสูจน์ความจริงได้ หรือ
(๒) มีเหตุจำเป็นเนื่องจากไม่สามารถนำบุคคลซึ่งเป็นผู้ที่ได้เห็น ได้ยิน หรือทราบข้อความเกี่ยวในเรื่องที่จะให้การเป็นพยานนั้นด้วยตนเองโดยตรงมาเป็นพยานได้ และมีเหตุผลสมควรเพื่อประโยชน์แห่งความยุติธรรมที่จะรับฟังพยานบอกเล่านั้น
ในกรณีที่ศาลเห็นว่าไม่ควรรับไว้ซึ่งพยานบอกเล่าใด ให้นำความในมาตรา ๙๕ วรรคสอง มาใช้บังคับโดยอนุโลม
English translation
A statement which is a report brought by a witness to testify before the court, or which is recorded in a document or other object adduced as evidence before the court, if presented to prove the truth of that statement, shall be deemed hearsay evidence.
The court shall not admit hearsay evidence, except:
(1) where, by the condition, nature, source, and surrounding circumstances of the hearsay evidence, it is believable that it can prove the truth, or
(2) where there is a necessity because the person who saw, heard, or came to know the matters to be testified about by himself directly cannot be brought as a witness, and there is a reasonable ground, in the interest of justice, to admit such hearsay evidence.
In the case where the court is of the opinion that a hearsay evidence should not be admitted, the provisions of Section 95 paragraph two shall apply mutatis mutandis.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 95/1 defines and controls hearsay in Thai civil evidence. Any statement, whether repeated by a witness or recorded in a document or object, that is offered to prove the truth of its contents is hearsay and is presumptively inadmissible. Two exceptions soften the rule: reliability judged from the condition, nature, source, and circumstances of the statement, or necessity where the firsthand witness is unavailable and justice supports admission. The section works alongside Section 95, which requires firsthand knowledge, and the last paragraph borrows Section 95's recording procedure when hearsay is refused. It is frequently applied to chat messages, third-party statements, and prior judgments offered for their truth.
Why this matters in practice
Do not build your case on messages or reports from people you cannot bring to court, because such material is hearsay and may be rejected unless it fits an exception. If you must rely on a statement from an unavailable person, be ready to show why it is reliable or why the person cannot attend, and support it with other evidence. Screenshots of chats between third parties are a common weak point, treat them as hearsay until you can anchor them to a witness with direct knowledge.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5954/2567 (2024)
Statements in a chat application between persons who are not called as witnesses are hearsay under Section 95/1 and, in principle, inadmissible where no exception applies.
The Supreme Court held that LINE messages the defendant relied on, exchanged between two persons he did not call as witnesses, were hearsay under Section 95/1 and did not fall within any exception, so they could not be admitted.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3298/2564 (2021)
Section 95/1 does not bar hearsay absolutely; where the condition, nature, source, and circumstances make a statement believable, the court may admit it to support other evidence under Section 95/1 paragraph two (1).
The Supreme Court held that prior judgments, though hearsay, were believable from their source and circumstances and could be admitted to support other evidence under Section 95/1 paragraph two (1).
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1169/2562 (2019)
Where part of a witness's knowledge was received from another person, that part may still be admitted under Section 95/1 when the source and circumstances make it believable, alongside the witness's own direct knowledge under Section 95.
The Supreme Court admitted the testimony of the plaintiff's representative, treating her direct knowledge as competent under Section 95 and the part she had heard from the plaintiff as believable hearsay under Section 95/1.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
What counts as hearsay evidence?
Under Section 95/1, a statement repeated by a witness or recorded in a document or object, offered to prove that the statement is true, is hearsay and presumptively inadmissible.
When can the court accept hearsay?
In two cases: when the source and circumstances make it believable, or when the firsthand witness cannot be brought and there is reasonable ground in the interest of justice to admit it.
Are chat screenshots between other people admissible?
Often not on their own, because they are hearsay under Section 95/1. They may be admitted only if they fit an exception, such as being reliable from their circumstances.