Section 135 — Prohibition on coercing a confession
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในการถามคำให้การผู้ต้องหา
ห้ามมิให้พนักงานสอบสวนทำหรือจัดให้ทำการใด ๆ ซึ่งเป็นการให้คำมั่นสัญญา ขู่เข็ญ
หลอกลวง ทรมาน ใช้กำลังบังคับ หรือกระทำโดยมิชอบประการใด ๆ
เพื่อจูงใจให้เขาให้การอย่างใด ๆ ในเรื่องที่ต้องหานั้น
English translation
In taking the accused's statement, the inquiry official is prohibited from doing or causing to be done any act that constitutes a promise, threat, deception, torture, use of force, or any unlawful means, in order to induce the accused to make any statement regarding the matter with which he is charged.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This section is the voluntariness safeguard within Chapter 1 (Ordinary Inquiry). It bars the inquiry official from using a promise, threat, deception, torture, force, or any unlawful means to induce the accused to make a statement about the charge. It complements the caution in Section 134/4 and, together with the admissibility rule in Section 226, governs whether a confession may be received against the accused. Case law has distinguished genuinely coercive conduct from legitimate investigative steps: not every misstatement of fact to an accused amounts to unlawful deception under this section.
Why this matters in practice
A confession is only lawful if it was given voluntarily, so if police used threats, false promises, torture, or force to make you talk, the confession can be challenged and excluded. Not every police tactic counts, however: the Supreme Court has held that a voluntary confession, even one following an officer's inaccurate remark, is not automatically the product of unlawful inducement. If you believe a statement was coerced, raise it early and get advice; you can book a consultation with a Thai lawyer to assess whether the confession can be excluded.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2215/2548 (2005)
A confession given voluntarily, not induced by any promise, threat, deception, or other unlawful means, may be used as evidence against the accused under Section 135.
The accused confessed after relatives who visited advised him to admit the offense. The Court held this showed the confession was voluntary, not the product of inducement, threat, or deception, so it could be used as evidence under Section 135.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 924/2544 (2001)
An officer telling the accused something untrue (that the victim was still alive) to learn the facts is not deception to induce a confession under Section 135, so the admission is not thereby inadmissible.
At the investigation the accused admitted he was driving; the officer had told him the victim was not dead, which was untrue. The Court held this was done to learn the facts within the officer's lawful power and was not deception to induce a confession under Section 135, so the admission could be relied on.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2140/2545 (2002)
Section 135, read with Sections 134 and 226, is applied to test whether an admission was improperly induced; where the accused did not dispute the facts at trial and the record showed a confession after the charge, the admission was not shown to be unlawful.
The accused argued the admission was taken before she was in the status of accused and without a proper warning, contrary to Sections 134, 135, and 226. The Court noted she did not contest the facts at trial and the record showed she confessed after the charge, so the admission was not established to be unlawful.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Can police threaten or trick me into confessing in Thailand?
No. Section 135 prohibits the inquiry official from using any promise, threat, deception, torture, force, or other unlawful means to induce the accused to make a statement.
Is every inaccurate statement by police unlawful deception?
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court has held that a voluntary confession is not automatically the product of unlawful inducement under Section 135 merely because an officer made an inaccurate remark while gathering facts.
What happens to a confession obtained by coercion?
A confession induced by prohibited means under Section 135 is unlawfully obtained and, read with Section 226, cannot be relied on as evidence against the accused.