The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the life sentence handed to Mamta Pathak, an Assistant Professor of Chemistry, for murdering her husband, Dr Neeraj Pathak, in 2021.
A bench of Justices Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra rejected her appeal and confirmed the conviction earlier passed by a Sessions Court.
Dr Neeraj Pathak was found dead under suspicious circumstances in his home in Chhatarpur on April 29, 2021. Initially, his wife Mamta Pathak reported the death as accidental under Section 174 of the CrPC, but a post-mortem revealed electrocution as the cause of death, leading to a murder case being registered against her.
During the investigation, police recovered sleeping pills, electric wires, and the CCTV DVR from the house. The prosecution alleged that Mamta first drugged her husband and then electrocuted him. The Sessions Court found her guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000.
She then challenged the conviction in the High Court, arguing that she was falsely implicated and that the evidence against her was flawed.
Representing herself in court, Mamta raised several technical and scientific objections:
She argued that electric burns can’t be differentiated from thermal burns without specialized forensic tests, which were not conducted.
She pointed out that the body showed no signs of decomposition, despite being found in summer.
She claimed that her husband was lying on non-conductive materials like a wooden bed and a plastic chair, making electrocution unlikely.
She highlighted procedural lapses—delayed FIR, missing signatures, key witnesses not examined, and crime scene not sealed.
The Court dismissed her arguments, saying the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain pointing only to her guilt. It found that:
She was present with the victim shortly before his death.
Sleeping pills and electric wires were recovered from her home based on her own disclosure.
There was no credible explanation for the injuries or circumstances of death.
The Court also said that the technical objections about forensic procedures and FIR details were not enough to negate the overall findings of guilt.
“All the circumstances in the chain are complete,” the bench said, adding that her scientific explanations failed to create reasonable doubt in the case.
The judges cited earlier Supreme Court rulings to back their conclusion that a false or weak explanation by the accused can be used to reinforce the prosecution’s case when the rest of the evidence is strong.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction and confirmed the life imprisonment sentence.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy