The court sentenced "Gotorn," a former well-known politician, and four others to death for the shooting death of Councilor Tong, reducing the sentence to life imprisonment due to their helpful testimony.
At courtroom 914, Criminal Court, at 09:00 on 24 Sep 2025 GMT+7, the court announced its verdict in the case of the joint intentional killing of Mr. Chaimet Sitthinotpong, also known as former Councilor Tong, case number A629/2568. The criminal prosecutor of Division 5 filed charges against defendants: 1) Mr. Thanasaranakorn Techathanatchot, 2) Mr. Saksit or Toon Chinwong, 3) Mr. Thanapat or Nao Songsang, 4) Mr. Apisit or Bas Sodchuen, 5) Mr. Sitthichai or Jim or Jin Sripakdi, 6) Mr. Patthanan or Off Boonchu, 7) Mr. Sunthorn Wilawan or Gotorn, former Prachinburi Provincial Administrative Organization president and former Deputy Minister of Public Health, and 8) Ms. Mincharat or May Pacharamarkul. They are charged collectively with intentional homicide and violating the Firearms Act.
The prosecution summarized the charges stating that on the night of 11 Dec 2024, Mr. Sunthorn ordered the other defendants to shoot Mr. Chaimet Sitthinotpong, or Councilor Tong, 22 times, killing him inside the house on Wat Roman Uthit Road, Na Mueang Subdistrict, Mueang District, Prachinburi Province. The defendants who denied the charges were brought from prison to hear the verdict.
Before the verdict reading, Ms. Napaphat Anchasanichmon, or Councilor Joy, wife of Councilor Tong, along with over 30 supporters, arrived to attend. When the eight defendants entered the courtroom, Mr. Sunthorn wore prison glasses and the prison uniform as per correctional regulations, sat in a wheelchair pushed by one of the defendants’ aides. Mr. Sunthorn was not restrained and greeted attendees with a smile and a wai, apparently recognizing some of the people present.
The court considered the evidence and concluded that on 11 Dec 2024, the deceased, Councilor Tong, with about 20 others, visited defendant number 7, Mr. Sunthorn's home in Prachinburi Province to discuss supporting the deceased’s wife in running for the provincial administrative organization presidency. Witnesses testified that the deceased approached only defendant number 7, who came down from the second floor and argued with him until defendant 7 cried. The deceased bowed and then started to leave the house. While waiting for the gate to open, the deceased changed his mind and re-entered the house via the side door near the swimming pool. Witnesses stated that after about 20 minutes inside, more than 10 gunshots were heard, followed by shouts that the deceased was shot. The deceased’s associates were alerted to prepare to take him to the hospital.
Although the prosecution lacked eyewitness testimony of the crime, they presented circumstantial evidence from police firearms experts who analyzed bullet trajectories and gunpowder residue. They used evidence collected from those present and conducted multiple reenactments at the crime scene to identify who fired the shots and their proximity to the victim.
The reenactment results supported that defendants 1 and 2 fired guns at the victim, consistent with their confessions. The victim’s body contained two types of bullets. Defendant 4 claimed to have hidden in a storage room, but reenactments and gunpowder residue found on him indicated he was near the shooting area. Defendant 4 also testified during investigation that defendant 7 had ordered to "hit him if he came to the house," suggesting conspiracy to commit the crime.
Gunpowder residue tests on defendant 7 proved he fired three shots from a shotgun belonging to defendant 2, confirming his involvement in shooting with intent to kill. However, the acts of defendants 1, 2, 4, and 7 did not meet criteria for premeditated murder as no prior planning meeting occurred, and the victim voluntarily returned to the house. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 were already with defendant 7 and were not summoned or prepared, so no evidence of conspiracy was found.
Defendant 7 claimed he fired three warning shots outside the house to intimidate, which was a defense raised later to match the gunpowder residue evidence. The court found this claim insufficiently credible.
Regarding defendants 3, 5, and 6, the prosecution only had gunpowder residue evidence. Defendant 3 had minor residue, while defendants 5 and 6 had none. Therefore, it could not be proven that these three participated in the killing, and reasonable doubt led to their benefit of the doubt.
Defendant 8 was found to have a relationship with defendant 1. On the incident day, while driving past defendant 7’s house crowded with people and cars, defendant 8 only alerted defendant 1 by chat and did not report or offer assistance. Considering all evidence, defendant 8 was not found guilty and was granted the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding whether defendants 1 to 7 committed the crime as a criminal gang, the prosecution’s evidence showed they killed the victim spontaneously without planning or dividing roles, so the court did not accept charges of gang-related offenses.
The victim’s elder brother, appointed estate manager, requested funeral ceremony damages exceeding one million baht. The court ordered defendants 1, 2, 4, and 7 to pay 801,400 baht in damages with 5% annual interest, while defendants 3, 5, 6, and 8 were not held liable.
The court sentenced defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 for multiple offenses according to their charges. For the intentional homicide charge, the court imposed the heaviest penalty: death for defendants 1, 2, 4, and 7, but reduced to life imprisonment due to mitigating circumstances. They were also convicted under the Firearms Act and ordered to jointly pay 801,400 baht in damages with 5% annual interest.
Defendants 3 and 5 were convicted under the Firearms Act and sentenced to eight months imprisonment plus a 7,000 baht fine for defendant 3, and one year two months imprisonment plus an 8,000 baht fine for defendant 5. Both had prior convictions, so their sentences were suspended for two years. Defendants 6 and 8 were acquitted. Charges of conspiracy and other offenses were dismissed.
Ms. Napaphat, or former Councilor Joy, wife of Councilor Tong, said before the verdict that she had spoken to her husband's spirit, asking him to attend the hearing together. Regarding the funeral date, she said she would consult with the family. The body remains at Makok Sima Ram Temple in Mueang District, Prachinburi Province. She no longer feels fear or suspicion about safety or working in the area as before. Since she no longer holds political office, she is not active in the field, focusing instead on caring for her children and has no plans to run in local elections.