Section 129 — Autopsy in death cases
Statutory text (Thai original)
ให้ทำการสอบสวนรวมทั้งการชันสูตรพลิกศพ ในกรณีที่ความตายเป็นผลแห่งการกระทำผิดอาญาดังที่บัญญัติไว้ในประมวลกฎหมายนี้อันว่าด้วยการชันสูตรพลิกศพ ถ้าการชันสูตรพลิกศพยังไม่เสร็จ ห้ามมิให้ฟ้องผู้ต้องหายังศาล
English translation
The investigation shall include an autopsy (post-mortem examination) in a case where death is the result of the commission of a criminal offence, as provided in this Code concerning autopsies. If the autopsy has not yet been completed, the accused shall not be prosecuted before the court.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This provision opens Chapter 1 (Ordinary Investigation) as it applies to death cases, linking the investigation to the Code's separate autopsy rules. It bars prosecution until the autopsy is complete, but the courts have read this narrowly: the requirement bites only where an autopsy is possible. Long-standing case law holds that Section 129 does not forbid prosecution where no autopsy could be carried out, for example because the body was cremated before examination, and that a defendant cannot escape conviction merely by objecting to how the autopsy was performed.
Why this matters in practice
In any case involving a death, the timing and validity of the autopsy can affect when, and whether, a prosecution may go ahead. A charge should not reach court before the autopsy is complete, but the courts will not dismiss a case simply because no autopsy was possible, for instance where the body was already cremated. Families of the deceased and accused persons alike may want early advice on their rights in a death investigation; a consultation with a Thai lawyer is a sensible first step.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 668/2493 (1950)
Where an autopsy has been completed, a defendant cannot escape the effect of Section 129 by objecting that the examining doctor did not personally attend the autopsy.
In a homicide case, the Supreme Court held that where the autopsy had been completed, the defendant's objection that the examining doctor did not personally attend the autopsy did not succeed under Section 129.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 363/2493 (1950)
Section 129 does not prohibit prosecution in a case where there was no autopsy; even if the autopsy were unlawful because the body had already been cremated, no law bars the prosecution.
The Supreme Court held that Section 129 does not bar prosecution where there was no autopsy, and that even if the autopsy in the case were unlawful because the body had been cremated by the time the judge attended, no law prohibited the prosecution; the investigation was otherwise lawful.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 464/2492 (1949)
Where no autopsy could be carried out because the body was cremated before examination, the prosecution is not prohibited under Sections 129 and 150.
The Supreme Court held that because the deceased's father had cremated the body before any autopsy, no autopsy was possible, and the prosecution was therefore not prohibited under Sections 129 and 150.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Is an autopsy required before prosecution in a death case?
Yes. Under Section 129, where death results from a crime the investigation must include an autopsy, and the accused cannot be prosecuted until the autopsy is complete.
What if no autopsy could be done?
The courts have held that Section 129 does not bar prosecution where no autopsy was possible, for example because the body was cremated before it could be examined.
Can a defendant object to how the autopsy was done?
Such objections have limited effect. The Supreme Court has held a defendant cannot avoid conviction merely by arguing that the doctor did not personally attend the autopsy.