---
In a gripping courtroom drama that captured the public's attention, Mamta Pathak, a retired chemistry professor, faced a life sentence after being convicted of murdering her husband, Neeraj Pathak, through electrocution. The proceedings unfolded in Madhya Pradesh, where the 63-year-old attempted to leverage her academic background to challenge the autopsy findings that ruled electrocution as the cause of death.
During her appearance, Mamta presented herself with composure, dressed in a white sari, and engaged the judges with detailed explanations about the differences between thermal and electrical burns, arguing that without advanced chemical analysis, distinguishing the nature of these burns is impossible. However, the judges reminded her of the post-mortem report, which explicitly identified electrocution as the cause of death.
Despite her spirited defense citing gaps in investigation and inconsistencies in medical testimonies, the High Court found the circumstantial evidence compelling. Evidence included a timeline of events leading to Neeraj's death, the discovery of sleeping pills in the household, and police accounts of an 11-meter electric wire linked to the fatal incident.
Mamta's defense strategy involved complex scientific theories and detailed references to forensic literature, but ultimately, her argumentation could not overcome the prosecution's narrative of motive derived from long-standing marital discord and suspicion. The estranged nature of the couple's relationship and allegations of coercive behavior from Neeraj towards Mamta also painted a troubling picture that weighed heavily in court.
Neeraj, prior to his death in April 2021, had been exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms and was found unresponsive. Mamta's actions following his death raised more questions—she failed to immediately report his condition and instead traveled with her son without any clear reason, further complicating her alibi.
Despite an emotional plea where she insisted, "I did not kill him," and her efforts to appeal to the judges' sympathy with familial sentiments, the court ultimately ruled against her. In their written judgment, the judges stated that Mamta's role as a mother and occasional gestures of care could not avert the implications of her past behavior and the dire circumstances surrounding her husband's death.
The case not only highlighted intense personal strife but also ignited a conversation about the intersection of science, law, and human emotional complexity, leaving Mamta Pathak to reflect on a future behind bars, far from her academic calling.
In a gripping courtroom drama that captured the public's attention, Mamta Pathak, a retired chemistry professor, faced a life sentence after being convicted of murdering her husband, Neeraj Pathak, through electrocution. The proceedings unfolded in Madhya Pradesh, where the 63-year-old attempted to leverage her academic background to challenge the autopsy findings that ruled electrocution as the cause of death.
During her appearance, Mamta presented herself with composure, dressed in a white sari, and engaged the judges with detailed explanations about the differences between thermal and electrical burns, arguing that without advanced chemical analysis, distinguishing the nature of these burns is impossible. However, the judges reminded her of the post-mortem report, which explicitly identified electrocution as the cause of death.
Despite her spirited defense citing gaps in investigation and inconsistencies in medical testimonies, the High Court found the circumstantial evidence compelling. Evidence included a timeline of events leading to Neeraj's death, the discovery of sleeping pills in the household, and police accounts of an 11-meter electric wire linked to the fatal incident.
Mamta's defense strategy involved complex scientific theories and detailed references to forensic literature, but ultimately, her argumentation could not overcome the prosecution's narrative of motive derived from long-standing marital discord and suspicion. The estranged nature of the couple's relationship and allegations of coercive behavior from Neeraj towards Mamta also painted a troubling picture that weighed heavily in court.
Neeraj, prior to his death in April 2021, had been exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms and was found unresponsive. Mamta's actions following his death raised more questions—she failed to immediately report his condition and instead traveled with her son without any clear reason, further complicating her alibi.
Despite an emotional plea where she insisted, "I did not kill him," and her efforts to appeal to the judges' sympathy with familial sentiments, the court ultimately ruled against her. In their written judgment, the judges stated that Mamta's role as a mother and occasional gestures of care could not avert the implications of her past behavior and the dire circumstances surrounding her husband's death.
The case not only highlighted intense personal strife but also ignited a conversation about the intersection of science, law, and human emotional complexity, leaving Mamta Pathak to reflect on a future behind bars, far from her academic calling.
