Bangkok Legal Service

Article 4

Mr. Vien had cohabited with Ms. Dee as husband and wife without registering their marriage. They had one daughter, Ms. Kum. When Ms. Kum was ten years old, Mr. Liem obtained custody of Ms. Kum, who became his adopted child and remained under his care. Subsequently, her body was discovered at a deserted house, Lot 21, Ph. . The police investigated the scene and completed the forensic examination of the deceased according to the law. The defendant filed a petition with the court to arrest Mr. Kom, who was charged with investigating the case. During the investigation, it was feared that Ms. Kum’s body would be burned, and the court ordered Dr. Kem to examine the body. Dr. Kem stated that the body of Ms. Kum, the deceased, was from the forensic unit of a hospital, which Mr. Kom claimed was obtained from him. Dr. Kem was tasked with investigating the facts and evidence that the defendant might need to refer to. The court granted the petition. Subsequently, the Prosecutor filed a criminal charge against Mr. Kom for theft and intentional homicide. During the presentation of evidence, Mr. Liem filed a petition to join with the Prosecutor. The court granted this petition. Upon completion of the case, the court delivered a judgment in one week. Mr. Vien filed a petition to join with the Prosecutor in order to exercise the right to appeal. The court granted this petition. The following order regarding whether the above-mentioned court order is valid:

The defendant Mr. Kom’s petition to have Dr. Kem examine the body of Ms. Kum, the deceased, to investigate the facts and evidence that the defendant might need to refer to, was granted. The forensic examination of the body is considered one form of criminal investigation under the Criminal Procedure Code, and it specifies the persons responsible for conducting forensic examinations, the methods of forensic examination, and the authority to conduct forensic examinations as stipulated in Section . Therefore, the Criminal Procedure Code Sections 153 and 155 are applicable. A request for pre-trial testimony was made according to the Criminal Procedure Code. However, it could not be applied as a precedent. When the police conducted the forensic examination, they followed the Civil Procedure Code, Section 101, and the examination of Ms. Kum was completed. Therefore, there was no reason to proceed with the defendant’s request to have Ms. Kum examined. Mr. Liem was only an adoptive father of Ms. Kum, the victim, who was killed, and therefore he did not have the authority to represent the victim according to the Criminal Procedure Code, Section .

Therefore, Mr. Liem could not file a petition to join in the criminal proceedings under Section . The plaintiff, together with the Prosecutor, could proceed according to the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Vien is the true father of Ms. Kum, even though he is an unwilling father according to the law, he is the legal guardian and has the authority to represent the victim who was killed according to the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 5(2). Therefore, Mr. Vien could file a petition with the Prosecutor during the consideration period before the trial court delivered its judgment. According to the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 30, Mr. Vien could file a petition with the Prosecutor after the trial court delivered its judgment. The plaintiff and the Prosecutor could proceed according to the Criminal Procedure Code.