The Ratchada Court said Thanawat Madnok, 37, who filed the lese majeste charge against his younger brother, Yuthaphum, in May 2010, discredited himself by giving a confused testimony and showing obvious hostility toward the defendant.
Mr Thanawat has a history of disputes with his brother, therefore his accounts of events must be carefully weighed, the court said, noting that the witness provided conflicting testimonies to police and the court as to when the alleged offences took place.Mr Yuthaphum had been detained in custody without bail since September 2012, on the grounds that he posed a threat to national security, but was released Friday.
The two brothers used to run a business selling car-washing liquid and lived together, though frequently quarreled, particularly over fights between their two dogs.
In December 2009, Mr Thanawat left their shared house and started his own business. One year later Mr Yuthaphum found that his brother had accused him of defaming the royal institution, verbally, and in words that he was alleged to have written on a CD.
The witness told the court that the defendant's wife was the person who found the CD bearing the slanderous words.But Mr Yuthaphum's wife denied the allegations and gave evidence to the contrary, explaining that her husband is loyal to the King, and illustrating her testimony with examples of how he would regularly express his gratitude to the King on auspicious occasions. The mother of the two men also verified Mr Yuthaphum's allegiance to the King.
The Court meanwhile brushed aside a forensic report which showed that the handwriting on the CD was the same as the defendant’s, saying that the report was flawed, because the type of pen used was not taken into account.
Mr Yuthaphum was said to be solemnly delighted at his acquittal, but "heavy-hearted for his family". His wife Jongkol Kongthin, 36, thanked the court, her husband's lawyer, and sympathisers who came to the courtroom.
Neither the mother of the men or Mr Thanawat came to hear the verdict. Ms Jongkol said her mother-in-law did not dare to come from Si Sa Ket to listen to the judgment read out.
Mr Yuthaphum's defence lawyer Savalux Pho-ngam said the case showed how Article 112 of the the Penal Code could be exploited and indecently applied. She said she was glad that her client had been freed, but said the law was still being exploited in other cases, including two which are currently on trial.
Ms Saovalux added that although justice had been served, her client had still had to suffer being imprisoned for one year.