Indian Chemistry Professor's Defense Fails in Husband's Murder Case

Mamta Pathak, a 63-year-old former chemistry teacher, argued her innocence in court, attempting to discredit the prosecution's case regarding her husband's death by electrocution. Despite her knowledge of forensic chemistry and spirited defense, the court upheld her life sentence, highlighting the circumstantial evidence against her.

In a dramatic court case that has captivated many, Mamta Pathak, a 63-year-old retired chemistry professor from Madhya Pradesh, stood trial for the murder of her husband, Neeraj Pathak, who died from electrocution in April 2021. In an unusual courtroom scene, she confidently addressed the judges, as if delivering a forensic chemistry lecture, trying to contest the findings of the autopsy that ruled electrocution as the cause of death.

Wearing a white sari and armed with case files, Mamta argued that without a proper chemical analysis, it was impossible to distinguish between thermal burns and electric burns. The judge, Justice Vivek Agarwal, however, reminded her of the autopsy's findings, which indicated definitive signs of electrocution. Despite her erudition and a passionate defense, including discussions on acids and tissue reactions, Mamta's arguments failed to sway the court.

The High Court dismissed her appeal last month, confirming her life sentence for the murder of her husband. According to court documents, Mamta had drugged Neeraj with sleeping pills before electrocuting him. Her defense relied on highlighting what she perceived as inconsistencies within the autopsy report and questioning the investigative process, claiming gaps in the examination of the crime scene and the absence of qualified experts.

Neeraj, a former chief medical officer, was discovered dead at their home, and the investigation revealed significant circumstantial evidence against Mamta. The police recovered an electric wire and sleeping pills that further implicated her. Additionally, witness reports suggested there had been tensions within their marriage, with Neeraj expressing fears about his wife's behavior prior to his death.

Though Mamta presented herself as a devoted mother, showcasing familial photos and birthday cards as evidence of her goodwill, the judges remained unconvinced by her emotional appeals. Their ruling reflected a broader concern for the motive behind the crime, rooted in longstanding marital discord.

Through it all, Mamta maintained her innocence, stating, "I know one thing… I did not kill him." Yet, despite her best efforts to turn the courtroom into a platform for her defense, the overwhelming evidence against her proved too substantial. The story not only raises questions about justice and familial relationships but highlights the complexities of interpersonal dynamics within a seemingly idyllic, middle-class life in India.