Section 242 — Inspection and Re-Sealing of Material Evidence
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในระหว่างการสอบสวน ไต่สวนมูลฟ้องหรือพิจารณา สิ่งของซึ่งเป็นพยานวัตถุให้คู่ความหรือพยานตรวจดูถ้ามีการแก้ห่อหรือทำลายตรา การห่อหรือตีตราใหม่ ให้ทำต่อหน้าคู่ความหรือพยานที่เกี่ยวข้องนั้น
English translation
During the investigation, the preliminary hearing, or the trial, an object that is material evidence shall be shown to the parties or witnesses for inspection. If a wrapping is opened or a seal broken, the re-wrapping or re-sealing shall be done in the presence of the parties or witnesses concerned.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 242 governs the handling and chain-of-custody safeguards for material evidence in Book 5, Chapter 4. It requires that exhibits be shown to the parties or witnesses for inspection at each stage, and that any re-wrapping or re-sealing after opening be done in their presence, protecting against tampering or substitution. The courts have applied it flexibly and purposively: opening and testing an exhibit in the presence of relevant witnesses during the investigation is valid even if done in the suspect's absence, and where an exhibit is bulky (a vehicle and its parts), photographing and recording it can satisfy the safeguard. It complements Section 241 on producing and inspecting material evidence.
Why this matters in practice
Chain of custody is where physical-evidence cases are often won or lost. If you are defending, scrutinise whether exhibits were shown for inspection and whether seals were opened and re-sealed properly in the presence of witnesses; a broken chain can undermine the prosecution's proof. But note the courts accept practical substitutes: photographs of bulky items, and inspection in front of witnesses even when the suspect was absent. A criminal defence lawyer can identify custody weaknesses worth challenging.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 2892/2536 (1993)
Where an exhibit is bulky, such as a vehicle and its parts that cannot conveniently be wrapped and sealed, photographing it is a sufficient distinguishing record, and showing the suspect photographs of the exhibit, where he did not ask to view the object directly, does not breach Section 242.
The exhibits were a car and car parts, which could not conveniently be boxed and sealed. The Supreme Court held that photographing them was a sufficient distinguishing mark, and that showing the suspect photographs of the exhibits, where he had not asked to inspect the objects directly, did not breach Section 242.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1095/2501 (1958)
Section 242 does not require that only the defendant inspect an exhibit; where an expert examined trace evidence on the vehicle and then testified to confirm the results, inspection by a witness suffices and the evidence is admissible.
The defendant argued that trace evidence (blood, hair, thread) found on the vehicle had been taken away for expert examination without letting him view it, contrary to Section 242. The Supreme Court held the evidence was admissible, as the expert examined it and then testified to confirm the results, and Section 242 does not require that only the defendant inspect the exhibit; inspection by a witness suffices.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 740/2496 (1953)
Opening and examining exhibits and transferring them to new containers during the investigation, if done in the presence of the witnesses concerned, does not breach Section 242 even though it is done in the suspect's absence.
During the investigation of an opium case, the exhibits were opened, examined, and transferred to new containers in the presence of the relevant witnesses but in the suspect's absence. The Supreme Court held this did not breach Section 242, because inspection before the concerned witnesses satisfies the provision even when done behind the suspect's back.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Must physical evidence be shown to the defendant in Thailand?
Section 242 requires exhibits to be shown to the parties or witnesses for inspection. The courts have held that opening and testing an exhibit before relevant witnesses is valid even if done in the suspect's absence.
What if physical evidence is too large to seal?
Where an exhibit is bulky, such as a vehicle and its parts, the courts have accepted that photographing and recording it satisfies Section 242 as a practical equivalent of wrapping and sealing.