MP High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Of Chemistry Professor For Husband's Murder, Rejects Her Scientific Explanations

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (July 29) upheld a Sessions Court order convicting an Assistant Professor of Chemistry for the murder of her husband and sentencing her to rigorous imprisonment for life.

Rejecting the scientific explanations she offered while arguing in person, the bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra concluded that convict Mamta Pathak was not keeping good terms with her husband and consequently, she tortured him to death firstly by serving him seductive drug and thereafter passing electric current through his body.

"...since all the circumstances in the chain are complete, the guilt of Smt. Mamta Pathak is proved beyond all reasonable doubt," the Court said after perusing witness testimonies.

Dr Neeraj Pathak was found dead in his residence in April 2021, under suspicious circumstances. An initial report was lodged by Mamta Pathak under, reporting the death as accidental. However, after the postmortem, which revealed the cause of the death to be cardio-respiratory failure due to electrocution, a criminal case under Section 302 of the IPC was registered.

During the investigation, items such as sleeping pills, electrical wire and CCTV DVRs were seized from their house. A trial ensued, wherein the Sessions Court convicted the Mamta.

Aggrieved, she approached the High Court, questioning the reliability of the post-mortem findings, including non-decomposition of the body. She argued that forensic tests cannot conclusively identify if a burn mark is from electric burns or thermal injuries, without a microscope or chemical tests— which were not conducted in this case.

Mamta had also disputed forensic expert's evidence that there was exit wound of electric current on the deceased's body. She claimed that since her husband was lying on a wooden bed with mattresses and bed sheet and his feet were kept on a plastic chair, all the material i.e. wood, plastic and clothes being non-conductors of electric current, there was no earthing and no possibility of any harm from the electric shock.

The State, however, argued that the post-mortem was conducted by a team of three doctors and showed multiple external burn injuries consistent with electric shock. It contended that the trial court had rightly found her guilty after careful assessment of the evidence. It was argued that her attempts to create doubt based on medical and procedural technicalities did not dislodge the broader circumstantial matrix. 

The Court noted that while the case was based on circumstantial evidence, it fulfilled the standards laid down in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra. The bench held that the recovery of electric wires, sleeping pills and DVR footage pursuant to her memorandum; her proximity and access to the scene, as well as the nature of the injuries, were sufficient to support the trial court's decision. 

Regarding her allegations that the police officials obtained her signatures through force, the court noted, "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". 

Relying on the case of In Shivaji Chintappa Patil versus State of Maharashtra, the court reiterated the Supreme Court's opinion that "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". 

Rejecting her scientific objections to the post-mortem findings, the court observed that the absence of metallization or decomposition signs did not negate electrocution as the cause of death, especially when the visual injury patterns and medical opinion were consistent. It also declined to accept the claim that faulty FIR procedure or failure to examine all witnesses necessarily vitiated the trial. 

"It is evident that when the FIR is neither ante-dated nor ante- timed, it is based on Merg Intimation (Exhibit P/8) and there is no allegation of it being ante-timed or ante-dated or manipulated inasmuch as even the name of the appellant is not mentioned in the FIR, much noise without any substance cannot be made so to frustrate the investigation and the consequential proceedings. Hence the aforesaid ground deserves to and is hereby rejected", the bench noted. 

The bench concluded the wife's technical arguments failed to rebut the presumption arising from established facts. Accordingly, the conviction order and sentencing were upheld. 

For appellant: Mamta Pathak (appearing in person), Senior Advocate Surendra Singh and Advocate Kapil Pathak

For State: Government Advocate Manas Mani Verma

Case Title: Smt. Mamta Pathak v The State Of Madhya Pradesh (CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6016 of 2022)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 168

Click here to read to Judgement