Section 227 — Weighing Evidence and Benefit of the Doubt
Statutory text (Thai original)
ให้ศาลใช้ดุลพินิจวินิจฉัยชั่งน้ำหนักพยานหลักฐานทั้งปวง อย่าพิพากษาลงโทษจนกว่าจะแน่ใจว่ามีการกระทำผิดจริงและจำเลยเป็นผู้กระทำความผิดนั้นเมื่อมีความสงสัยตามสมควรว่าจำเลยได้กระทำผิดหรือไม่ ให้ยกประโยชน์แห่งความสงสัยนั้นให้จำเลย
English translation
The court shall exercise its discretion in weighing all the evidence. It shall not render a judgment of conviction until it is certain that an offense has actually been committed and that the defendant is the person who committed that offense. Where there is reasonable doubt whether the defendant committed the offense, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the defendant.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 227 is the cornerstone of proof in Thai criminal trials, expressing both the free-evaluation-of-evidence principle and the standard of proof. Paragraph one requires the court to be certain, both that an offense occurred and that this defendant is the offender, before convicting, which is Thailand's formulation of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Paragraph two states the in dubio pro reo rule: reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. It sits in Book 5 General Principles and interacts with Section 227/1, which adds caution for weak categories of evidence, and with Section 226/3 on hearsay. The standard applies even where the defendant has pleaded guilty in serious cases governed by Section 176.
Why this matters in practice
This is the provision a defense lawyer builds a case around: the prosecution carries the burden, and any reasonable doubt must be resolved for the accused. Even a guilty plea in a serious case does not remove the prosecution's duty to prove the offense to the court's satisfaction. On appeal, arguments that the lower court ignored reasonable doubt rest on Section 227 paragraph two. If you are deciding how to plead or how to run a defense, a consultation with a Thai lawyer can assess whether the evidence truly meets this standard.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5681/2568 (2025)
Even where a defendant pleads guilty in a serious case under Section 176, the prosecution must still prove the offense to the court's satisfaction, consistent with the weighing and certainty standard of Section 227.
The offense carried life imprisonment and fell under Section 176 paragraph one, so despite the guilty plea the prosecution bore the burden of proving guilt. The court applied Section 227, requiring certainty that the offense occurred and that the defendant committed it.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1207/2567 (2024)
Where reasonable doubt remains as to whether the defendant committed the charged offense, the benefit of the doubt is given to the defendant under Section 227 paragraph two and the charge is dismissed.
In a transnational organized crime prosecution, the court found reasonable doubt whether the defendant participated in the organization, gave the benefit of the doubt under Section 227 paragraph two, and upheld the acquittal.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 3270/2568 (2025)
Where the question of guilt has become final, a defendant cannot re-raise on further appeal that the benefit of the doubt under Section 227 paragraph two should apply.
The court held that once the finding of guilt was final under the applicable rules, the defendant had no right to argue on further appeal that reasonable doubt required acquittal under Section 227 paragraph two, though the separate question of a lighter sentence remained open.
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 is the standard of proof in a Thai criminal case?
Under Section 227, the court must be certain that an offense was committed and that the defendant committed it before convicting. Any reasonable doubt must be resolved in the defendant's favor, which is Thailand's version of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Does a guilty plea remove the need for the prosecution to prove the case?
Not always. In serious cases under Section 176 the prosecution must still satisfy the court that the offense occurred, and Section 227 continues to require certainty of guilt before conviction.