The court acquitted “Am Cyanide” in her third trial, accused of poisoning engineer Nittaya in Nakhon Pathom in 2020. The court found the prosecution failed to prove how the defendant possessed cyanide and lacked evidence of motive related to property. Defense lawyer Patch said they plan to use this verdict as a precedent for other cases.
On 11 March 2026, in courtroom 710 at the Criminal Court on Ratchadaphisek Road, the court announced the verdict in the third murder case against Am Cyanide, case number A.274/2568. The Criminal Division 8 prosecutor filed charges against Ms. Sararat Rangsivutaporn, also known as Am Cyanide, accusing her of intentional and premeditated murder.
The case concerns an incident between 22-23 August 2020, where the defendant was accused of putting cyanide poison into a drink consumed by 36-year-old Ms. Nittaya Kaewbuppha, causing her death due to circulatory and respiratory failure. The prosecution alleged the defendant had a motive related to the victim’s property.
The court considered witness testimony confirming they had seen the defendant visit the victim at a hospital construction site in Nakhon Pathom province and could clearly recall the defendant’s face. Therefore, the defendant’s claim of never visiting the victim at the site was unsupported by evidence.
On the night of the incident, a witness who was the victim’s creditor visited her at the dormitory and saw the defendant and victim talking together in the dormitory’s ground-floor hall. The victim told the witness she had pawned a car for 150,000 baht and planned to repay the money the next day after depositing funds at the bank. The witness did not see the money personally. The victim also invited the witness to have dinner with the defendant, but the witness declined and later learned of the victim’s death.
Regarding the autopsy, the forensic doctor testified in court that they could not determine whether cyanide caused the death because cyanide testing was not conducted, as there was no initial suspicion of cyanide involvement. However, a toxicology expert from Siriraj Hospital informed investigators that photographic evidence and forensic findings resembled cyanide poisoning symptoms. This expert’s opinion aligned with forensic pathology and witness testimony confirming the victim was in good health, supporting the conclusion the death was due to cyanide poisoning.
As for whether the defendant had a motive related to the victim’s property, evidence suggested the victim had pawned two cars to the defendant. After the victim’s death, the defendant informed the victim’s husband to redeem a car for 150,000 baht. This raised reasonable suspicion about the defendant’s intent regarding the victim’s property, as claimed by the prosecution.
Concerning cyanide possession, investigation evidence showed the defendant ordered cyanide on 9 August 2022. However, the prosecution failed to prove how or whether the defendant possessed cyanide in 2020 when the victim died. Therefore, the court examined the charges independently without applying prior verdicts as negative precedents. Other evidence was not further considered as it would not affect the verdict. The defendant was found not guilty as charged, and no civil liability for damages to the three complainants was imposed. The court dismissed the prosecution’s case and the complainants’ requests but ordered the defendant to remain in custody pending appeal.
Ms. Thannicha Eksuwanwat, Sararat’s lawyer, said the court found the prosecution’s evidence insufficient and could not prove the defendant possessed cyanide in 2020, the year of the victim’s death.
The court also viewed pawning the car as a normal right of the defendant. After the victim’s death, the defendant notified the victim’s close associates and arranged for relatives to redeem the cars. There was no clear evidence of robbery, and the prosecution lacked sufficient proof, so the court gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt.
Although the court acquitted the defendant, because the case carries the death penalty, the court ordered the defendant to remain detained during the appeal process. The prosecution retains the right to appeal.
Regarding other ongoing cases, the lawyer explained that the cases fall into two periods: those before 9 August 2022, when cyanide purchase records were found, and those after. The details will depend on the evidence in each case as considered by the court.
Previously, the Criminal Court had issued two verdicts involving Am Cyanide. The first case involved poisoning Ms. Siriporn Khanwong, 33, with cyanide, leading to her death. The court sentenced Am Cyanide to death in that case.
In the second case, the Criminal Court recently sentenced Am Cyanide to life imprisonment for poisoning Lieutenant Colonel Female Police Inspector Nipa Saenchan, 38, causing her death.