Mamta Pathak, a 60-year-old chemistry professor from Madhya Pradesh’s Chhatarpur, has contested the forensic findings that led to her conviction for her husband’s death — arguing before the High Court that her scientific knowledge disproves the prosecution’s theory of electrocution.
Currently out on bail after being sentenced to 20 years in prison, Pathak has taken the unusual step of arguing her appeal personally before a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The judges, Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra, have reserved judgment and suspended her sentence in the meantime.
‘Thermal and electric burns look similar — only chemical tests can tell them apart’
A video of the professor making her case in court has been widely circulated online. In it, she asserts that it is scientifically inaccurate to determine electric burns through visual inspection alone. “You can’t distinguish electric burns from thermal burns in an autopsy without chemical analysis,” she told the bench.
When asked by Justice Agarwal whether she was indeed a professor of chemistry, she confirmed she was. The judge then pointed out that her defense had failed to raise these scientific questions at trial — to which she replied, “I was in jail then.”
Her credibility took a hit, however, when she mistakenly swapped nitric acid for hydrochloric acid in an argument — a lapse the bench noted.
A marriage marked by conflict — and a death shrouded in suspicion
Mamta’s husband, Dr Neeraj Pathak (63), was found dead on April 29, 2021, with what investigators described as electrical burns in multiple areas. Although the couple had reconciled after a separation, prosecutors alleged their relationship remained volatile due to Mamta’s suspicions of infidelity.
On the day of his death, Neeraj reportedly called a relative, saying Mamta had confined him to a bathroom for days, denied him food, and physically assaulted him. When police intervened following a tip-off, Mamta released him. That same evening, he was found dead.
Mamta claimed she discovered his lifeless body when she went to him for food. She said she left for dialysis the next morning in Jhansi — but failed to inform police until she returned later that evening, citing the hospital’s refusal to treat her without a Covid certificate.
Investigators found sleeping pills in Neeraj’s room, and the trial court convicted Mamta based on circumstantial evidence, including the relative’s testimony and a phone recording from the day of the alleged abuse.
In her appeal, Mamta also questioned why no official inspection was done to confirm a short circuit at the insured home. She pointed to the absence of decomposition-related details in the autopsy despite the postmortem being conducted 36 hours after death. “Why is there no mention of foul smell?” she asked.
While the court acknowledged that it was hearing her case “out of turn” and “with an open mind,” Justice Agarwal reminded her that criminal appeals are ultimately decided based on “the touchstone of evidence.”
The judgment is now pending.
(With inputs from ToI)
Currently out on bail after being sentenced to 20 years in prison, Pathak has taken the unusual step of arguing her appeal personally before a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The judges, Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra, have reserved judgment and suspended her sentence in the meantime.
‘Thermal and electric burns look similar — only chemical tests can tell them apart’
A video of the professor making her case in court has been widely circulated online. In it, she asserts that it is scientifically inaccurate to determine electric burns through visual inspection alone. “You can’t distinguish electric burns from thermal burns in an autopsy without chemical analysis,” she told the bench.When asked by Justice Agarwal whether she was indeed a professor of chemistry, she confirmed she was. The judge then pointed out that her defense had failed to raise these scientific questions at trial — to which she replied, “I was in jail then.”
Her credibility took a hit, however, when she mistakenly swapped nitric acid for hydrochloric acid in an argument — a lapse the bench noted.
A marriage marked by conflict — and a death shrouded in suspicion
Mamta’s husband, Dr Neeraj Pathak (63), was found dead on April 29, 2021, with what investigators described as electrical burns in multiple areas. Although the couple had reconciled after a separation, prosecutors alleged their relationship remained volatile due to Mamta’s suspicions of infidelity.On the day of his death, Neeraj reportedly called a relative, saying Mamta had confined him to a bathroom for days, denied him food, and physically assaulted him. When police intervened following a tip-off, Mamta released him. That same evening, he was found dead.
Mamta claimed she discovered his lifeless body when she went to him for food. She said she left for dialysis the next morning in Jhansi — but failed to inform police until she returned later that evening, citing the hospital’s refusal to treat her without a Covid certificate.
Investigators found sleeping pills in Neeraj’s room, and the trial court convicted Mamta based on circumstantial evidence, including the relative’s testimony and a phone recording from the day of the alleged abuse.
In her appeal, Mamta also questioned why no official inspection was done to confirm a short circuit at the insured home. She pointed to the absence of decomposition-related details in the autopsy despite the postmortem being conducted 36 hours after death. “Why is there no mention of foul smell?” she asked.
While the court acknowledged that it was hearing her case “out of turn” and “with an open mind,” Justice Agarwal reminded her that criminal appeals are ultimately decided based on “the touchstone of evidence.”
The judgment is now pending.
(With inputs from ToI)
