In a case that stunned legal and academic circles alike, Mamta Pathak, a chemistry professor from Madhya Pradesh, was convicted for the murder of her husband, Dr. Neeraj Pathak, a retired physician. The case drew national attention due to her scientific self-defense in court, unusual for someone without formal legal training.
The Crime and Charges
The incident occurred in April 2021 in Chhatarpur. Dr. Neeraj Pathak was found dead in suspicious circumstances. Initially thought to be a natural death, an autopsy later revealed signs of electrocution. Investigations alleged that Mamta sedated her husband with sleeping pills and then electrocuted him using a two-pin plug wire. The motive, according to the police, was rooted in marital discord and suspicion of her husband’s infidelity.
Mamta was arrested and charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (murder). The Sessions Court found her guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment.
Her Scientific Defense
What made this case extraordinary was Mamta’s decision to argue her own appeal in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. As a chemistry professor, she launched a detailed technical rebuttal, questioning the forensic conclusions drawn by the prosecution.
She claimed the burns found on her husband’s body were not conclusively electrical and that thermal burns could resemble electric ones. She emphasized that no electron microscopy or chemical analysis was conducted to confirm the presence of metal particles—a hallmark of electric burns.
She further challenged the possibility of electrocution in their home setup, arguing that the bed and surrounding structures were non-conductive and lacked proper grounding or electrical pathways. Her arguments were articulate, scientifically sound in parts, and even described by the court as a “mini masterclass” in chemistry.
Why Her Appeal Was Rejected
Despite her bold effort, the High Court upheld her conviction in July 2025. The court noted that:
- A two-pin plug wire used in the crime was recovered.
- A clear exit wound on the body supported electrocution.
- Witnesses and forensic experts confirmed the findings.
- Her delayed reporting of death and suspicious behavior post-incident added weight to the prosecution’s case.
The court acknowledged her scientific expertise but maintained that circumstantial evidence, medical reports, and motive proved the murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Would a Lawyer Have Helped Her?
Possibly. While Mamta’s scientific knowledge was impressive, she lacked the legal expertise to challenge procedural lapses, evidence admissibility, or effectively cross-examine witnesses. A trained defense lawyer could have:
- Filed technical objections on evidence collection or chain of custody,
- Challenged the credibility of witnesses,
- Raised legal technicalities like the delay in FIR naming or the quality of postmortem.
Moreover, an advocate might have balanced the emotional and circumstantial narrative with stronger legal precedents and procedural challenges, possibly sowing doubt.
In short, while Mamta Pathak’s self-defense was commendable, a trained legal professional might have increased her chances of acquittal—or at least reduced the sentence.
