Section 226 — Admissibility of Evidence Lawfully Obtained
Statutory text (Thai original)
พยานวัตถุ พยานเอกสาร หรือพยานบุคคลซึ่งน่าจะพิสูจน์ได้ว่าจำเลยมีผิดหรือบริสุทธิ์ ให้อ้างเป็นพยานหลักฐานได้ แต่ต้องเป็นพยานชนิดที่มิได้เกิดขึ้นจากการจูงใจ มีคำมั่นสัญญา ขู่เข็ญ หลอกหลวงหรือโดยมิชอบประการอื่น และให้สืบตามบทบัญญัติแห่งประมวลกฎหมายนี้หรือกฎหมายอื่นอันว่าด้วยการสืบพยาน
English translation
Material evidence, documentary evidence, or witness testimony that is likely to prove the guilt or innocence of the defendant may be adduced as evidence, but it must be evidence of a kind that did not arise from inducement, a promise, a threat, deception, or other unlawful means, and it shall be taken in accordance with the provisions of this Code or of other law concerning the taking of evidence.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This is the foundational admissibility rule of Thai criminal evidence law. It sets a broad relevance test, evidence likely to prove guilt or innocence is admissible, subject to an integrity condition on how the evidence itself came into being: it must not have arisen from inducement, promise, threat, deception, or other unlawful means. This targets the manner in which the evidence was created, such as a confession extracted by threats. It works closely with Section 226/1, which addresses the separate situation of evidence that was lawfully created but unlawfully obtained, and with the procedural rules on taking evidence. Confessions and statements not shown to be improperly obtained are admissible under this section.
Why this matters in practice
For an accused, this section is the basis for excluding a confession or statement produced by threats, inducement, promises, or deception, so how the evidence was obtained is worth scrutinizing early. The prosecution carries the practical burden of showing the evidence was not improperly created; where nothing indicates impropriety, the court will admit it. Note the distinction the courts draw: Section 226 addresses evidence that arose improperly, while Section 226/1 handles evidence lawfully created but unlawfully obtained. Framing an objection under the correct provision matters. If you face criminal proceedings, consider a consultation with a Thai lawyer.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 685/2567 (2024)
Statements and confessions that are not shown to have arisen unlawfully may be adduced and relied on to convict under Section 226, including where a lawyer signed the record and the defendant pointed out the scene.
The defendants' statements were taken with a lawyer signing the record, and one defendant pointed out where explosives were buried. As nothing showed the statements were unlawfully obtained, the Supreme Court held them admissible and sufficient to convict under Section 226.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 6820/2567 (2024)
Records of interrogation, scene identification, statements, and seized exhibits that were created and obtained lawfully are not prohibited from being heard under Section 226 and may be used to convict.
The Supreme Court found the interrogation records, scene identification, witness statements, and seized exhibits were created and obtained lawfully, so they were not barred under Section 226 and, together with CCTV and phone-tracking evidence, supported conviction.
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 evidence is inadmissible under Section 226?
Evidence that arose from inducement, a promise, a threat, deception, or other unlawful means, such as a confession obtained by threats. Otherwise, evidence tending to prove guilt or innocence is admissible.
Is a confession always admissible?
No. A confession is admissible only if it was not produced by inducement, promise, threat, deception, or other improper means under Section 226. If nothing shows impropriety, the court may admit it.