In a sensational courtroom case that drew national attention and sparked intense debate on social media, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the life sentence of 64-year-old Mamta Pathak, a former Assistant Professor of Chemistry, who was convicted of murdering her husband, Dr. Neeraj Pathak, a retired government physician.

The court, in its comprehensive 97-page judgment, ruled that the evidence presented during trial and appeal established Mamta’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The verdict was delivered by Justices Vivek Agrawal and Devnarayan Mishra, who affirmed the 2022 conviction issued by the Sessions Court in Chhatarpur.

Professor Defends Herself in Court, Video Goes Viral

The case gained unusual prominence after Mamta, granted interim bail to care for her mentally challenged child, chose to represent herself during her appeal at the Jabalpur bench of the High Court. Her self-advocacy and scientific explanations, rooted in her academic background, attracted widespread public interest. A clip of her confidently addressing the judges went viral, particularly her calm response to the query: “Are you a chemistry professor?” — to which she simply replied, “Yes.”

Dr. Neeraj Pathak’s body was found in April 2021 at the couple’s home under mysterious conditions. Mamta initially claimed the death was accidental, caused by electric shock. However, a forensic investigation and post-mortem raised suspicions. The autopsy, performed by a panel of three doctors, cited multiple electrical burn injuries and concluded the death was due to cardio-respiratory failure caused by electrocution. Based on this, the police filed a murder case under Section 302 of the IPC.

During the trial, authorities recovered sleeping pills, electric wires, and DVR footage from the residence, which prosecutors argued strengthened the circumstantial case against Mamta. Her proximity to the scene, access to materials used in the crime, and the nature of her husband’s injuries formed the crux of the prosecution’s argument. The High Court endorsed the lower court’s interpretation that the chain of evidence met the legal standard for conviction in a case relying on circumstantial proof.

Mamta attempted to refute the prosecution’s claims through scientific reasoning, challenging the credibility of the medical findings. She argued that distinguishing between thermal and electrical burns requires specialised testing — such as scanning electron microscopy and chemical analysis — which was not conducted. “It can only be made by acro reaction and scanning electron microscopy from the deposition of metal particles into the skin/tissue, but no such attempt was made,” she asserted during the hearing.

Professor Cites Non-Conductive Setup to Dispute Electrocution Claim

She also contested the claim that electrocution was physically possible under the circumstances, stating that her husband was lying on a wooden bed with his feet resting on a plastic chair — materials that are non-conductive. According to her, the absence of earthing made electric shock unlikely.

The High Court dismissed these arguments, citing that electrocution could still occur despite the materials involved, depending on the conditions and voltage. Forensic expert Dr. D.S. Badkur’s testimony was cited, explaining that electrocution-related physiological changes may develop slowly and can vary depending on voltage and exposure.

Mamta also questioned the post-mortem report’s claim about the time of death, arguing that the body showed no decomposition even though the report estimated death occurred 36 to 72 hours before autopsy. She contended that humidity and environmental conditions were not factored in. The court, however, clarified that decomposition timelines can vary widely based on local climatic conditions and rejected her claim.

Additionally, Mamta alleged procedural lapses — including pressure to sign documents and flaws in FIR registration — but the court found no credible basis for these claims. “Merely saying that her signatures were obtained under pressure and explaining that her signatures were obtained after seven days of recording of the inquest, are two different things and she has very cleverly tried to cover up by saying that the admission which has already come on record in the form of signatures on inquest were obtained under duress after seven days. There is no material to support the aforesaid contention and, therefore, it needs to and is hereby rejected,” the bench stated.

Court Cites Strong Circumstantial Evidence to Uphold Conviction

The judges emphasised that while Mamta’s self-defense was technically articulate, it failed to dismantle the consistent evidentiary chain established by investigators. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s guidance in Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated that circumstantial evidence, when complete and unbroken, is sufficient for conviction.

Referring to Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, the court also noted, “False explanation or non-explanation of the difference can be used as additional circumstance when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of accused and similar facts are available in the present case.”

The State’s counsel, Manas Mani Verma, emphasised that the court had taken a thorough approach to ensure fairness, including appointing senior advocate Surendra Singh as amicus curiae to assist Mamta in her appeal. The court ultimately ruled that the nature of the crime was serious and deliberate, justifying the life sentence.

Mamta Pathak has now been ordered to surrender immediately and begin serving her sentence. Her courtroom presence, scientific poise, and viral fame may have captured public imagination — but the judiciary, relying on established law and forensic fact, found no basis to overturn her conviction.