Bangkok Legal Service

According to the investigation file in a criminal case concerning the offence of receiving stolen property, the victim’s bicycle was stolen by an unidentified offender. Subsequently, police officers conducted a search of the suspect’s residence without a search warrant and seized certain bicycle accessories. The searching officers failed to prepare any written record specifying the details of the search and the items seized. Thereafter, the investigating officer showed the seized items to the victim, who confirmed that they were indeed parts of the bicycle that had been stolen.

The legal issue is whether the evidence obtained in this case is admissible, and if so, to what extent.

Under Section 226 of the Thai Criminal Procedure Code, any object, document, or statement of a person which is likely to prove whether the accused committed the offence or is innocent may be admitted as evidence, provided that such evidence was not obtained through inducement, promise, threat, deception, or any other unlawful means.

In the present case, the police search and seizure were not conducted in compliance with the law. The officers entered and searched the suspect’s residence without a warrant, and they also failed to make a proper record of the search and seizure, including the details of the items allegedly found. Such omission is contrary to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly Sections 102 and 103, which govern the lawful manner of conducting a search and recording the seized property.

As a result, both the testimony of the police officers regarding the search and seizure, and the physical items allegedly obtained therefrom, constitute evidence that arose from or was obtained by unlawful means. Such evidence is therefore inadmissible and may not be relied upon by the court as evidence against the accused.

Although the victim subsequently identified the seized bicycle accessories as the very items that had been lost, such confirmation does not cure the illegality of the search and seizure. The victim’s identification merely establishes that the items resemble or are the same as the stolen property, but it does not lawfully connect the accused to possession of those items. Since there is no admissible evidence proving that the police lawfully discovered the items in the suspect’s residence, the prosecution cannot rely on such evidence to establish that the accused was the offender or that he was in unlawful possession of stolen property.

Accordingly, the evidence in this case is not admissible for the purpose of proving the accused’s guilt. In the absence of lawful and admissible evidence showing that the stolen bicycle accessories were actually found in the possession of the accused, the case lacks sufficient evidentiary basis to support a conviction.

Conclusion:
The police testimony concerning the search, the seized bicycle accessories, and the related documentary deficiency are all tainted by illegality because the search and seizure were conducted in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, such evidence is inadmissible. The victim’s subsequent identification of the property cannot independently establish the accused’s guilt. Consequently, the evidence cannot be relied upon to prove that the accused committed the offence of receiving stolen property.